5 ms·

Isn't the simple answer that the embassy of Ecuador in London cut off his access to the Internet? The embassy announced they had restricted his access to the I

Isn't the simple answer that the embassy of Ecuador in London cut off his access to the Internet? The embassy announced they had restricted his access to the Internet beginning October 17th. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/19/wikileaks-ecuador-julian-assange-internet-access https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/19/wikileaks-ecua...

lomnakkus 10y ago
Well, someone like Assange would surely have a Dead Man's Switch, but may be of interest that it hasn't triggered yet. (Honestly, if I were ever in the same situation, I'd probably let it run for quite a long time, just in case I'm incapacitated for a long time by an accident, say.)
- rando444 10y ago
  The speculation is that the reason the switch didn't get triggered is related to the ddos attack on the dyn dns provider which happened shortly after that.
  - lomnakkus 10y ago
    Oh! ... but wouldn't this still be quite short-term? (Or, is the argument that the DDoS was actually meant to redirect some queries, or...?)
    - rando444 10y ago
      Nobody knows. All anyone knows is that A happened and B happened. Everything else is speculation, including how the switch might operate or whether or not the outage is related. I'd recommend reading the chronology on the website, it's all the facts anyone knows for sure.. but regardless, at the end of the day, some proof that the man is alive would be nice. http://assange.net/chronology/ http://assange.net/chronology/
      - lomnakkus 10y ago
        That's unjustified equivocation, IMO. You're arguing that the probabilities are somehow "equal" (or at least of comparable magnitude), but I don't think that's even remotely the case. Don't get me wrong! It's very worrying that we haven't heard anything from him. I think a simpler explanation is simply that he's been killed and that "they" are waiting for enough time to pass for either: 1) everyone to 'forget' his importance, or 2) to control the 'narrative' enough that "we" will hate him regardless. EDIT: If he has been permanently incapacitated, I'd hope that he has staged a series of increasingly disruptive DMSes over, say, a few decades. I'm guessing there was enough data in some of the leaks for that.
x1798DE 10y ago
That article says that his internet was cut off because they were afraid he was interfering with US Elections, which were two weeks ago. Why wouldn't they have turned them back on by now? Also, the internet isn't the only way to communicate and prove you are alive, so one would think there would be credible information by now. Not that I really believe anything's happened - could well be he's trying to drum up some drama - just pointing out that on its face the "temporary" cutting off of his internet seems to have extended beyond the deadline.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Maybe they want him to leave but don't want the drama of forcibly ejecting him. So they shut off his amenities and wait.
rando444 10y ago
He could still stand at a window or have someone else share a photo of him. There's just too many strange things going on. The one thing that did it for me is when they published those pre-commit hashes.. and then released the files and the files didn't match the hashes... then they tried to claim that the hashes were for the decrypted files.. Which to me raises just too many red flags that something is off.
- gorhill 10y ago
  > then they tried to claim that the hashes were for the decrypted files What do you mean "tried"? Even if WL didn't say it explicitly, that would be the top sensible explanation after one find the actual hash of one of the encrypted files does not match the published one.
  - rando444 10y ago
    Most often encrypted archives contain more than one file, so the only way this could be true is if there is an archive inside an archive. Which is totally possible.. but then the whole point of a hash is to let someone know that a file is as it was intended. So, if you're not giving a hash for the file you're sending.. you're basically setting people up for opening potentially malicious files on the hopes that the file they want is actually inside. Which to me is just ridiculous.
    - gorhill 10y ago
      > Most often encrypted archives contain more than one file The whole cablegate archive was a single 7z file.
level09 10y ago
This sequence of events can give some light on the issue (quoted from 4chan): Oct 20th/21st: Wikileaks tweets 5 tweets with misspelled words. The incorrect letters spell "HELP HIM". The Wikileaks twitter has never made a spelling error, let alone 5 in two days. [1] Oct 21st: Massive DDoS attack on US internet. Wikileaks tweets to imply the attack originates from its supporters, asking them to stop, no evidence supports claim. Oct 21st: London Airport evacuated due to "chemical attack", potentially used as cover to fly Assange out of country. Oct 22nd: Gavin MacFadyen (mentor to Assange and key player in Wikileaks) dies of lung cancer. Oct 23rd: Wikileaks Tweets poll asking how best to prove Assange is alive (he still hasn't appeared on video or at the window since). Oct 24th: Wikileaks Tweets video of Assange and Michael Moore recorded in June. Oct 26th: 4chan users successfully successfully decode their first message in Wikileak's blockchain. Threads are instantly flooded by shills saying that it's not worth looking into. The blockchain is blocked with fees and 43000 unconfirmed transactions appear in the mempool. Nov 6th: Huge DDoS takes down Wikileaks for first time in years. Nov 7th: Various entities notice hundreds of Podesta and DNC emails are missing from recent leaks, accessed with direct entry. Nov 8th: Trump wins. Nov 12th: Assange meets with Swedish prosecutor regarding rape allegations, lawyers barred from attending, meeting conducted via an Equadorian ambassador (not face to face) Nov 14th: Wikileaks releases insurance files, SHA-256 hashes do not match those tweeted in October. [1]: http://img.pr0gramm.com/2016/11/17/a4af28fa5ce1c059.png http://img.pr0gramm.com/2016/11/17/a4af28fa5ce1c059.png
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 10y ago
  > Oct 21st: London Airport evacuated due to "chemical attack", potentially used as cover to fly Assange out of country. Cover for who to fly Assange out of the country? When an airport is evacuated that's going to stop air traffic out of the airport, and it is likely to cause enhanced scrutiny of the people who are at the airport. If the people trying to get him out are not working with the UK government, that would not be the opposite of what they want. If it was the UK government trying to get him out, they could probably arrange for a special flight to leave the airport while it is ostensibly down. Of course, that would draw attention to that flight because you'd have assorted airport workers see that a flight had received special permission to leave a closed airport, and so it must be something very important. Why would they do that, when if it is the UK government they could simply take Assange in a windowless van to a UK military base and fly him out on a military flight? That could easily be done in a way that would have virtually no risk whatsoever of calling attention to the operation. Actually, the same goes for anyone else trying to get him out. The hard part in moving Assange is at the Ecuador embassy end of things, not at the transport out of the UK end. If the Ecuador embassy is cooperating with the move, then the windowless van works no matter who the party is.

lomnakkus 10y ago

Well, someone like Assange would surely have a Dead Man's Switch, but may be of interest that it hasn't triggered yet. (Honestly, if I were ever in the same situation, I'd probably let it run for quite a long time, just in case I'm incapacitated for a long time by an accident, say.)

rando444 10y ago
The speculation is that the reason the switch didn't get triggered is related to the ddos attack on the dyn dns provider which happened shortly after that.
- lomnakkus 10y ago
  Oh! ... but wouldn't this still be quite short-term? (Or, is the argument that the DDoS was actually meant to redirect some queries, or...?)
  - rando444 10y ago
    Nobody knows. All anyone knows is that A happened and B happened. Everything else is speculation, including how the switch might operate or whether or not the outage is related. I'd recommend reading the chronology on the website, it's all the facts anyone knows for sure.. but regardless, at the end of the day, some proof that the man is alive would be nice. http://assange.net/chronology/ http://assange.net/chronology/
    - lomnakkus 10y ago
      That's unjustified equivocation, IMO. You're arguing that the probabilities are somehow "equal" (or at least of comparable magnitude), but I don't think that's even remotely the case. Don't get me wrong! It's very worrying that we haven't heard anything from him. I think a simpler explanation is simply that he's been killed and that "they" are waiting for enough time to pass for either: 1) everyone to 'forget' his importance, or 2) to control the 'narrative' enough that "we" will hate him regardless. EDIT: If he has been permanently incapacitated, I'd hope that he has staged a series of increasingly disruptive DMSes over, say, a few decades. I'm guessing there was enough data in some of the leaks for that.

x1798DE 10y ago

That article says that his internet was cut off because they were afraid he was interfering with US Elections, which were two weeks ago. Why wouldn't they have turned them back on by now? Also, the internet isn't the only way to communicate and prove you are alive, so one would think there would be credible information by now. Not that I really believe anything's happened - could well be he's trying to drum up some drama - just pointing out that on its face the "temporary" cutting off of his internet seems to have extended beyond the deadline.

mikeash 10y ago
Maybe they want him to leave but don't want the drama of forcibly ejecting him. So they shut off his amenities and wait.

rando444 10y ago

He could still stand at a window or have someone else share a photo of him. There's just too many strange things going on. The one thing that did it for me is when they published those pre-commit hashes.. and then released the files and the files didn't match the hashes... then they tried to claim that the hashes were for the decrypted files.. Which to me raises just too many red flags that something is off.

gorhill 10y ago
> then they tried to claim that the hashes were for the decrypted files What do you mean "tried"? Even if WL didn't say it explicitly, that would be the top sensible explanation after one find the actual hash of one of the encrypted files does not match the published one.
- rando444 10y ago
  Most often encrypted archives contain more than one file, so the only way this could be true is if there is an archive inside an archive. Which is totally possible.. but then the whole point of a hash is to let someone know that a file is as it was intended. So, if you're not giving a hash for the file you're sending.. you're basically setting people up for opening potentially malicious files on the hopes that the file they want is actually inside. Which to me is just ridiculous.
  - gorhill 10y ago
    > Most often encrypted archives contain more than one file The whole cablegate archive was a single 7z file.

level09 10y ago

This sequence of events can give some light on the issue (quoted from 4chan): Oct 20th/21st: Wikileaks tweets 5 tweets with misspelled words. The incorrect letters spell "HELP HIM". The Wikileaks twitter has never made a spelling error, let alone 5 in two days. [1] Oct 21st: Massive DDoS attack on US internet. Wikileaks tweets to imply the attack originates from its supporters, asking them to stop, no evidence supports claim. Oct 21st: London Airport evacuated due to "chemical attack", potentially used as cover to fly Assange out of country. Oct 22nd: Gavin MacFadyen (mentor to Assange and key player in Wikileaks) dies of lung cancer. Oct 23rd: Wikileaks Tweets poll asking how best to prove Assange is alive (he still hasn't appeared on video or at the window since). Oct 24th: Wikileaks Tweets video of Assange and Michael Moore recorded in June. Oct 26th: 4chan users successfully successfully decode their first message in Wikileak's blockchain. Threads are instantly flooded by shills saying that it's not worth looking into. The blockchain is blocked with fees and 43000 unconfirmed transactions appear in the mempool. Nov 6th: Huge DDoS takes down Wikileaks for first time in years. Nov 7th: Various entities notice hundreds of Podesta and DNC emails are missing from recent leaks, accessed with direct entry. Nov 8th: Trump wins. Nov 12th: Assange meets with Swedish prosecutor regarding rape allegations, lawyers barred from attending, meeting conducted via an Equadorian ambassador (not face to face) Nov 14th: Wikileaks releases insurance files, SHA-256 hashes do not match those tweeted in October. [1]: http://img.pr0gramm.com/2016/11/17/a4af28fa5ce1c059.png http://img.pr0gramm.com/2016/11/17/a4af28fa5ce1c059.png

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tzs 10y ago
> Oct 21st: London Airport evacuated due to "chemical attack", potentially used as cover to fly Assange out of country. Cover for who to fly Assange out of the country? When an airport is evacuated that's going to stop air traffic out of the airport, and it is likely to cause enhanced scrutiny of the people who are at the airport. If the people trying to get him out are not working with the UK government, that would not be the opposite of what they want. If it was the UK government trying to get him out, they could probably arrange for a special flight to leave the airport while it is ostensibly down. Of course, that would draw attention to that flight because you'd have assorted airport workers see that a flight had received special permission to leave a closed airport, and so it must be something very important. Why would they do that, when if it is the UK government they could simply take Assange in a windowless van to a UK military base and fly him out on a military flight? That could easily be done in a way that would have virtually no risk whatsoever of calling attention to the operation. Actually, the same goes for anyone else trying to get him out. The hard part in moving Assange is at the Ecuador embassy end of things, not at the transport out of the UK end. If the Ecuador embassy is cooperating with the move, then the windowless van works no matter who the party is.