17 ms·

Ecuador acknowledges it has "temporarily restricted" Assange's communications

137 points by aburan28 10y ago

mey 10y ago
Not sure how I feel about this. I'm against censorship but he basically set himself up at the perpetual mercy of Ecuador. Their house, their rules. Conversely in passive observation, wikileaks has had a pretty clear agenda in timing, materials and communications over the last few months.
- contingencies 10y ago
  Wikileaks can only work with the material they have been given and have always tried to maximize it's impact as part of their enabling role as a publisher. I don't see how in this regard temporal optimization differs from timed release, proxy release or fundamental analysis (such as statistics), all of which they have offered in the past. As for 'agenda', this is like saying the organization has a 'purpose' - to quote their about page: "the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption".
  - HillRat 10y ago
    There is the troubling fact that emails tracing the flow of funds from Syria to Russian banks vanished from the "Syrian files" email dump sent by hackers to WikiLeaks, despite the fact that the hackers considered those the Crown Jewels of their data exfil. WL has never explained why they didn't publish those emails, though they did blame the press for reporting what they called Hillary Clinton's "neo-McCarthyist conpiracy theories," which was ... somewhat nonresponsive to the allegation.
    - contingencies 10y ago
      {{citation-needed}} ... http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-russia-bank-2-billion/ http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-r... claims the source of this rumour is "leaked US court documents" of "Manhattan" that are "sealed" (as if they were authoritative on information in the possession of hackers and their thoughts) ... the article's two authors asked Wikileaks for comment, Wikileaks said this "is speculation and it is false". The journalists in question work for a b-grade US populist rag, and the US routinely monitors all international financial transactions via the SWIFT system, and has done so since at least 2001 (official letterhead response of the EU to a FOIA I made), as well as credit/debit card systems, Western Union, etc. Given this background, draw your own conclusions.
jonah 10y ago
Official statement: http://www.cancilleria.gob.ec/comunicado-oficial-sobre-el-caso-julian-assange-2/ http://www.cancilleria.gob.ec/comunicado-oficial-sobre-el-ca... Google Translate: "Ecuador granted political asylum to Julian Assange in 2012 on the basis of their legitimate fears of political persecution because of his journalistic activities as editor of WikiLeaks. "In recent weeks, WikiLeaks has published a large number of documents which have an impact on the election campaign in the United States. The decision to make public such information is the sole responsibility of the Wikileaks organization. "The Government of Ecuador respects the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries, it does not interfere in electoral processes in progress or support a candidate in particular. "In that sense, Ecuador, in exercise of its sovereign right, has temporarily restricted access to part of its communications system in its embassy in the UK. "This temporary restriction does not prevent the WikiLeaks organization to carry out his journalistic activities. "Ecuador, consistent with its tradition of defending human rights, especially with the victims of political persecution reaffirms granted asylum to Julian Assange and reiterates its intention to safeguard their lives and physical integrity until you can move to a safe place. "Ecuador's foreign policy responds only to sovereign decisions and not yield to pressure from other states."
- lazaroclapp 10y ago
  Native Spanish speaker here and, other than a few transparent gramatical errors, I can confirm this translation is correct.
- TravelTechGuy 10y ago
  I applaud the Ecuadorian government's attempt to at least distance themselves from this latest attempt by Wikileaks to influence our democratic process. While in the past I viewed WL as a crucial part of openness and democracy, I'm very suspicious of their current sources, and their intentions. Not to mention Assange's personal interests (he expressed hatred towards Hillary - wonder what he thinks of Trump). >"The Government of Ecuador respects the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries". A not so subtle hint to the fact that our country does not. For years we've meddled in the elections of countries around the world - directly and indirectly. We are still doing it in some parts, overtly supporting regimes that we like, and covertly derailing potential candidates who we assume will not play by our rules.
ldjb 10y ago
Slightly expanded article: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6f997f97c5f140a29f385ea05f1b642c/wikileaks-assanges-internet-link-severed-state-actor http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6f997f97c5f140a29f385ea05f1b6...
- dang 10y ago
  Thanks. We've switched to that from http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4e99014f395c40f3854542a5ae6190f2/ecuador-acknowledges-it-has-temporarily-restricted http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4e99014f395c40f3854542a5ae619....
whyenot 10y ago
I had a lot more sympathy for Assange and Wikileaks before the recent releases that seem to have been timed to influence the US elections. Also, why has it taken so long for him to agree to an interview on the rape allegations? Yes, it's possible, as Assange has asserted, that it is bogus, but there are also two victims who deserve some closure.
- ryanlol 10y ago
  >Yes, it's possible, as Assange has asserted, that it is bogus, but there are also two victims who deserve some closure. Worth noting that the two victims have also stated that the allegations are false.
  - alex_hitchins 10y ago
    Got a link for that?
  - Kiro 10y ago
    I googled this a lot and didn't find anything supporting this. Source please.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  I am curious why your sympathy changed after the recents leaks.
  - zzalpha 10y ago
    Well, so question (and this is an honest one): suppose Russia or China hacked into government facilities and then leaked information that influenced the election. Do you see that as okay? Next, suppose Russia or China supported an independent actor who did the same. Is that okay? Now, remember, these are foreign actors with their own agendas. They may have very good reason to, say, doctor the releases or groom them in a way that best serves their interests. So, on the one hand, one could argue that information should be free, transparency is important, etc, etc. Ultimately, they're doing everyone a service. On the other, there is a legitimate question about nations and foreign actors meddling in a sovereign state's electoral process, and the precedent that sets regarding international norms and established codes of conduct. It's not a black-and-white issue by any means.
beedogs 10y ago
I'm okay with this.
- thingexplainer 10y ago
  I'd love to hear more about why.
  - jcmoscon 10y ago
    he is a democrat.
    - beedogs 10y ago
      no, but you are an idiot.
cryoshon 10y ago
ecuador acknowledges that the us state department offered them concessions in exchange for cutting of a dissident's internet
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  Proof? Their press statement says exactly the opposite.
  - 4ad 10y ago
    Oh yes. Governments never lie.
makomk 10y ago
Announced right when it's most effective in distracting from the really dubious pedo allegation against Assange - which itself happened right when he was unable to respond due to his internet connection being cut - imploding under the most basic journalistic investigation, and from the way it spread like wildfire amongst Clinton supporters despite absolutely reeking: https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-bizarre-story-of-how-a-tiny-online-dating-site-accused-j https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-bizarre-story-o... I mean, I guess it's probably not all intentional, but the timing of events sure does hate the guy right now.
- Taek 10y ago
  The Clinton campaign has been really effective with timing related to Assange events. The Trump sexual video was released immediately following a wiki leaks dump. It's pretty clear that they are happy to play dirty, and have planned out moves like these.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Yeah, because creating new and more far-fetched allegations about a minor player like Assange's totally unblemished reputation and making the week's news cycle all about ClintonLeaks is obviously far more important to her Presidential campaign than using those techniques to undermine, say, the idea that Mike Pence might be a quite safe and steady running mate for Trump.
    - Taek 10y ago
      The DNC has hundreds of millions of dollars driving their campaign. There's no reason that they can't fight on all fronts at once. The wikileaks vs. Trump leaks move has basically destroyed Trump's campaign. It was a fantastic move on their part, whatever calculus went in to their timing.
      - notahacker 10y ago
        My point is they have no reason to want to waste their dollars getting Assange and ClintonLeaks more press at all, and if they're fighting that dirty, every reason to want Pence - who isn't the subject of any major allegations - to get some bad press. Or for the public to continue to lap up the latest Trump mishaps and not pay as much attention to the Podesta emails as Wikileaks would like. But we're supposed to believe they have instead chosen to focus their efforts in keeping Assange in the press through the most obviously implausible setup possible, in a way which might cast doubt on two already very well-publicised and widely-believed allegations about Assange. And use their setup vehicle to issue press releases on the subject of obscure rulings by UN-affiliated bodies regarding Assange's detention and blog about "state-level interference", because obviously these are subjects that are the day-to-day obsession of Hillary Clinton, and not Assange and his supporters. Well, if Wikileaks says it was the Clinton campaign, it must be true.
chx 10y ago
The USA embassy didn't allow Mindszenthy to send any mail they didn't read. As far as I am aware phone calls were absolutely not allowed.
_tb 10y ago
All the people criticizing the timing, can you imagine what they would say if this was about documents on trump? Fuck you. Seriously.
- zzalpha 10y ago
  sigh Come on man. If you'd just stopped at the question mark, you'd have a civil, if somewhat pithy comment that could potentially trigger some sort of conversation. Instead you punctuate with foul language and insults, effectively nullifying your comment. I know this stuff is polarizing and frustrating, particularly when you think there's bias or hypocrisy at work. But you can do better. In this particular case, there's a very interesting potential debate that can be had about the ethics of leaks, the timing of leaks, the dangers posed by these types of leaks (e.g., actors with an agenda using "leaks" to release data that's biased or groomed to fit an agenda), the ethics of nation states supporting independent actors engaging in these types of activities... Incidentally, to address your question, if it had been Trump... I'll admit it, it might bother me less. I wish I could say it wouldn't, because in reality, it'd be no different: an unaccountable, likely biased actor, who appears to be blatantly working to manipulate the election from the safety of a foreign embassy. Whether they're manipulating it to push the electorate toward Trump or Hillary doesn't make that any less questionable...
TorKlingberg 10y ago
So we had a 1100+ comments thread full of conspiracy theories for, this?
- tombone12 10y ago
  Yes, Assange and wikileaks have built a strong mythos around themselves, in part based on true events.
ajman 10y ago
I just don't get why these people think that 'silencing' Assange would stop the leaks from happening, don't they (WL) have an algorithm running the dumps, and people ready to take the helm if he died?
- abgawrv 10y ago
  They distribute an encrypted torrent of all their files. The decryption key is supposed to be released via a dead man's switch, according to Assange.
- anotheryou 10y ago
  It certainly doesn't change a thing and they are prepared and decentralized enough to avoid many attacks, but in general single persons can be very important to organizations and wikileaks is not that big.
PJDK 10y ago
Something that people aren't commenting much on but feels sort of significant to me is the way this information was released. The initial tweet talked ambiguously about some "State Actor" cutting off internet. Although true, that seems designed to spark off an storm of conspiracy theories when the truth is quite banal.
- anotheryou 10y ago
  Well probably it was through pressure from another state actor, just no fancy hacking involved. But yeah, just get that dude a mobile internet usb-stick. I would think twice before sharing my wifi with Assange, too.

137 points by aburan28 10y ago

mey 10y ago

Not sure how I feel about this. I'm against censorship but he basically set himself up at the perpetual mercy of Ecuador. Their house, their rules. Conversely in passive observation, wikileaks has had a pretty clear agenda in timing, materials and communications over the last few months.

contingencies 10y ago
Wikileaks can only work with the material they have been given and have always tried to maximize it's impact as part of their enabling role as a publisher. I don't see how in this regard temporal optimization differs from timed release, proxy release or fundamental analysis (such as statistics), all of which they have offered in the past. As for 'agenda', this is like saying the organization has a 'purpose' - to quote their about page: "the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption".
- HillRat 10y ago
  There is the troubling fact that emails tracing the flow of funds from Syria to Russian banks vanished from the "Syrian files" email dump sent by hackers to WikiLeaks, despite the fact that the hackers considered those the Crown Jewels of their data exfil. WL has never explained why they didn't publish those emails, though they did blame the press for reporting what they called Hillary Clinton's "neo-McCarthyist conpiracy theories," which was ... somewhat nonresponsive to the allegation.
  - contingencies 10y ago
    {{citation-needed}} ... http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-russia-bank-2-billion/ http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-r... claims the source of this rumour is "leaked US court documents" of "Manhattan" that are "sealed" (as if they were authoritative on information in the possession of hackers and their thoughts) ... the article's two authors asked Wikileaks for comment, Wikileaks said this "is speculation and it is false". The journalists in question work for a b-grade US populist rag, and the US routinely monitors all international financial transactions via the SWIFT system, and has done so since at least 2001 (official letterhead response of the EU to a FOIA I made), as well as credit/debit card systems, Western Union, etc. Given this background, draw your own conclusions.

jonah 10y ago

Official statement: http://www.cancilleria.gob.ec/comunicado-oficial-sobre-el-caso-julian-assange-2/ http://www.cancilleria.gob.ec/comunicado-oficial-sobre-el-ca... Google Translate: "Ecuador granted political asylum to Julian Assange in 2012 on the basis of their legitimate fears of political persecution because of his journalistic activities as editor of WikiLeaks. "In recent weeks, WikiLeaks has published a large number of documents which have an impact on the election campaign in the United States. The decision to make public such information is the sole responsibility of the Wikileaks organization. "The Government of Ecuador respects the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries, it does not interfere in electoral processes in progress or support a candidate in particular. "In that sense, Ecuador, in exercise of its sovereign right, has temporarily restricted access to part of its communications system in its embassy in the UK. "This temporary restriction does not prevent the WikiLeaks organization to carry out his journalistic activities. "Ecuador, consistent with its tradition of defending human rights, especially with the victims of political persecution reaffirms granted asylum to Julian Assange and reiterates its intention to safeguard their lives and physical integrity until you can move to a safe place. "Ecuador's foreign policy responds only to sovereign decisions and not yield to pressure from other states."

lazaroclapp 10y ago
Native Spanish speaker here and, other than a few transparent gramatical errors, I can confirm this translation is correct.
TravelTechGuy 10y ago
I applaud the Ecuadorian government's attempt to at least distance themselves from this latest attempt by Wikileaks to influence our democratic process. While in the past I viewed WL as a crucial part of openness and democracy, I'm very suspicious of their current sources, and their intentions. Not to mention Assange's personal interests (he expressed hatred towards Hillary - wonder what he thinks of Trump). >"The Government of Ecuador respects the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries". A not so subtle hint to the fact that our country does not. For years we've meddled in the elections of countries around the world - directly and indirectly. We are still doing it in some parts, overtly supporting regimes that we like, and covertly derailing potential candidates who we assume will not play by our rules.

ldjb 10y ago

Slightly expanded article: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6f997f97c5f140a29f385ea05f1b642c/wikileaks-assanges-internet-link-severed-state-actor http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6f997f97c5f140a29f385ea05f1b6...

dang 10y ago
Thanks. We've switched to that from http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4e99014f395c40f3854542a5ae6190f2/ecuador-acknowledges-it-has-temporarily-restricted http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4e99014f395c40f3854542a5ae619....

whyenot 10y ago

I had a lot more sympathy for Assange and Wikileaks before the recent releases that seem to have been timed to influence the US elections. Also, why has it taken so long for him to agree to an interview on the rape allegations? Yes, it's possible, as Assange has asserted, that it is bogus, but there are also two victims who deserve some closure.

ryanlol 10y ago
>Yes, it's possible, as Assange has asserted, that it is bogus, but there are also two victims who deserve some closure. Worth noting that the two victims have also stated that the allegations are false.
- alex_hitchins 10y ago
  Got a link for that?
- Kiro 10y ago
  I googled this a lot and didn't find anything supporting this. Source please.
bogomipz 10y ago
I am curious why your sympathy changed after the recents leaks.
- zzalpha 10y ago
  Well, so question (and this is an honest one): suppose Russia or China hacked into government facilities and then leaked information that influenced the election. Do you see that as okay? Next, suppose Russia or China supported an independent actor who did the same. Is that okay? Now, remember, these are foreign actors with their own agendas. They may have very good reason to, say, doctor the releases or groom them in a way that best serves their interests. So, on the one hand, one could argue that information should be free, transparency is important, etc, etc. Ultimately, they're doing everyone a service. On the other, there is a legitimate question about nations and foreign actors meddling in a sovereign state's electoral process, and the precedent that sets regarding international norms and established codes of conduct. It's not a black-and-white issue by any means.

beedogs 10y ago

I'm okay with this.

thingexplainer 10y ago
I'd love to hear more about why.
- jcmoscon 10y ago
  he is a democrat.
  - beedogs 10y ago
    no, but you are an idiot.

cryoshon 10y ago

ecuador acknowledges that the us state department offered them concessions in exchange for cutting of a dissident's internet

Analemma_ 10y ago
Proof? Their press statement says exactly the opposite.
- 4ad 10y ago
  Oh yes. Governments never lie.

makomk 10y ago

Announced right when it's most effective in distracting from the really dubious pedo allegation against Assange - which itself happened right when he was unable to respond due to his internet connection being cut - imploding under the most basic journalistic investigation, and from the way it spread like wildfire amongst Clinton supporters despite absolutely reeking: https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-bizarre-story-of-how-a-tiny-online-dating-site-accused-j https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-bizarre-story-o... I mean, I guess it's probably not all intentional, but the timing of events sure does hate the guy right now.

Taek 10y ago
The Clinton campaign has been really effective with timing related to Assange events. The Trump sexual video was released immediately following a wiki leaks dump. It's pretty clear that they are happy to play dirty, and have planned out moves like these.
- notahacker 10y ago
  Yeah, because creating new and more far-fetched allegations about a minor player like Assange's totally unblemished reputation and making the week's news cycle all about ClintonLeaks is obviously far more important to her Presidential campaign than using those techniques to undermine, say, the idea that Mike Pence might be a quite safe and steady running mate for Trump.
  - Taek 10y ago
    The DNC has hundreds of millions of dollars driving their campaign. There's no reason that they can't fight on all fronts at once. The wikileaks vs. Trump leaks move has basically destroyed Trump's campaign. It was a fantastic move on their part, whatever calculus went in to their timing.
    - notahacker 10y ago
      My point is they have no reason to want to waste their dollars getting Assange and ClintonLeaks more press at all, and if they're fighting that dirty, every reason to want Pence - who isn't the subject of any major allegations - to get some bad press. Or for the public to continue to lap up the latest Trump mishaps and not pay as much attention to the Podesta emails as Wikileaks would like. But we're supposed to believe they have instead chosen to focus their efforts in keeping Assange in the press through the most obviously implausible setup possible, in a way which might cast doubt on two already very well-publicised and widely-believed allegations about Assange. And use their setup vehicle to issue press releases on the subject of obscure rulings by UN-affiliated bodies regarding Assange's detention and blog about "state-level interference", because obviously these are subjects that are the day-to-day obsession of Hillary Clinton, and not Assange and his supporters. Well, if Wikileaks says it was the Clinton campaign, it must be true.

chx 10y ago

The USA embassy didn't allow Mindszenthy to send any mail they didn't read. As far as I am aware phone calls were absolutely not allowed.

_tb 10y ago

All the people criticizing the timing, can you imagine what they would say if this was about documents on trump? Fuck you. Seriously.

zzalpha 10y ago
sigh Come on man. If you'd just stopped at the question mark, you'd have a civil, if somewhat pithy comment that could potentially trigger some sort of conversation. Instead you punctuate with foul language and insults, effectively nullifying your comment. I know this stuff is polarizing and frustrating, particularly when you think there's bias or hypocrisy at work. But you can do better. In this particular case, there's a very interesting potential debate that can be had about the ethics of leaks, the timing of leaks, the dangers posed by these types of leaks (e.g., actors with an agenda using "leaks" to release data that's biased or groomed to fit an agenda), the ethics of nation states supporting independent actors engaging in these types of activities... Incidentally, to address your question, if it had been Trump... I'll admit it, it might bother me less. I wish I could say it wouldn't, because in reality, it'd be no different: an unaccountable, likely biased actor, who appears to be blatantly working to manipulate the election from the safety of a foreign embassy. Whether they're manipulating it to push the electorate toward Trump or Hillary doesn't make that any less questionable...

TorKlingberg 10y ago

So we had a 1100+ comments thread full of conspiracy theories for, this?

tombone12 10y ago
Yes, Assange and wikileaks have built a strong mythos around themselves, in part based on true events.

ajman 10y ago

I just don't get why these people think that 'silencing' Assange would stop the leaks from happening, don't they (WL) have an algorithm running the dumps, and people ready to take the helm if he died?

abgawrv 10y ago
They distribute an encrypted torrent of all their files. The decryption key is supposed to be released via a dead man's switch, according to Assange.
anotheryou 10y ago
It certainly doesn't change a thing and they are prepared and decentralized enough to avoid many attacks, but in general single persons can be very important to organizations and wikileaks is not that big.

PJDK 10y ago

Something that people aren't commenting much on but feels sort of significant to me is the way this information was released. The initial tweet talked ambiguously about some "State Actor" cutting off internet. Although true, that seems designed to spark off an storm of conspiracy theories when the truth is quite banal.

anotheryou 10y ago
Well probably it was through pressure from another state actor, just no fancy hacking involved. But yeah, just get that dude a mobile internet usb-stick. I would think twice before sharing my wifi with Assange, too.