**WARNING DARK TOPIC** A sick/dark new twist to Assange losing his internet connection.

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

For my part, I'm on board with WikiLeaks original purpose of wanting "to ensure that journalists and whistleblowers are not prosecuted for emailing sensitive or classified documents." But publishing information from state-sponsored hackers is outside of the scope of that purpose.

Assuming that's what happened here, which we don't seem to know for sure, what's the distinction?

If wikileaks, for example, were to receive hacked email from canadian intelligence that Trump was commiting widespread voter fraud, is your position that Wikileaks should keep this information quiet?

 

[Kalbear]

41 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

No, Kal. I think, as I've stated from the beginning, that it's problematic for the state department to try and silence critics of a particular party, or to pressure foreign governments to do so on their behalf.

I don't even know how you are defining 'influencing the election' here other than 'providing information that reflects negatively on a candidate.'

But Assange isn't a US citizen. Like...at all. 

And again, Wikileaks wasn't being silenced before this in any way, shape or form. You can spin it as saying that they're trying to stop Wikileaks from hurting HRC, but that ship has apparently long sailed. What this appears to be is a response to actual evidence that wikileaks is being used by a foreign agency to deliberately attempt  to swing the election towards a specific party using stolen data. 

If Assange was criticizing only, that'd be one thing (he isn't). If Assange was just 'providing information' that would be one thing (he isn't). Instead, wikileaks is releasing information that appears to be stolen, and that theft is specifically being done by another government, and the goal of that appears to be putting in a leader in the election that is friendly to that government. I don't get the problem you have with this at all. 

Do you really have a problem with a nation trying to discourage other countries from spreading hacked information about them?

[Ariadne23]

49 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

If wikileaks, for example, were to receive hacked email from canadian intelligence that Trump was commiting widespread voter fraud, is your position that Wikileaks should keep this information quiet?

 

If the Canadian government had evidence of voter fraud and shared it with...WikiLeaks? And did not contact the appropriate US authorities?

What if Ultron intercepted credible information that uplifted dolphins were hijacking the US election and shared it with WikiLeaks? Would it be hacking when he can't help it? Would the dolphins be under UN jurisdiction? Would Cap sign the accords?

[Swordfish]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But Assange isn't a US citizen. Like...at all. 

Assanges citizenship is irrelevant to me.  

 

Quote

And again, Wikileaks wasn't being silenced before this in any way, shape or form. You can spin it as saying that they're trying to stop Wikileaks from hurting HRC, but that ship has apparently long sailed. What this appears to be is a response to actual evidence that wikileaks is being used by a foreign agency to deliberately attempt  to swing the election towards a specific party using stolen data. 

You keep saying that is the reason.  How do you know?

I find it interesting that you have no issue with the content itself.

Perhaps you are just completely against whistleblowers? Or only whistleblowers who are using hacked information?  Or something else?

Quote

If Assange was criticizing only, that'd be one thing (he isn't). If Assange was just 'providing information' that would be one thing (he isn't). Instead, wikileaks is releasing information that appears to be stolen, and that theft is specifically being done by another government, and the goal of that appears to be putting in a leader in the election that is friendly to that government. I don't get the problem you have with this at all. 

Where is the evidence of this?

If the information is accurate and relevant, I am not inclined to throw it out, just because of where it came from.

The content of the information, and why the information was not able to be secured are two separate issues.

Quote

Do you really have a problem with a nation trying to discourage other countries from spreading hacked information about them?

 

Assange is not another country. He's a person.

Again, where is the evidence that Russia is the source of the information (such as it is) that he's sharing?

 

 

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Assanges citizenship is irrelevant to me.  

So why frame it as a matter of US freedom of speech then? What rights does an extraterritorial person living at the grace of Ecuador have, and why can't the US ask that question.

8 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

You keep saying that is the reason.  How do you know?

I find it interesting that you have no issue with the content itself.

Perhaps you are just completely against whistleblowers? Or only whistleblowers who are using hacked information?  Or something else?

I don't know for certain that this is the case, but it logically follows. Namely, Assange's internet was not shut down after Snowden. It was not shut down after the DNC hack in July. It was not even shut down later. It was, however, shut down after the US stated publicly that Russia was behind the hack. It is not causative necessarily, but the correlation is definitely there. 

Put it another way: why would shutting him down now make sense instead of, say, in July? Or 3 years ago? Why not shut him down after the DNC reveals? If you're going for the idea that it's for Clinton's sake, doesn't it make a hell of a lot more sense to do so much earlier? 

I am totally in favor of whistleblowers, as I've said repeatedly on this thread. I made a pretty long argument in favor of a wikileaks organization existing - which you even responded to. What i think very strongly is that releasing hacked emails from the DNC and Podesta's emails in bulk is not actually whistleblowing in any sense of the word. If you wanted to release the DWS stuff on its own to show her corruption - that makes sense. Releasing Podesta's risotto recipe - how the hell is that in support of whistleblowing? That's just a pure invasion of privacy, full stop.

8 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Where is the evidence of this?

If the information is accurate and relevant, I am not inclined to throw it out, just because of where it came from.

The content of the information, and why the information was not able to be secured are two separate issues.

The evidence that it's a Russian hack? Are you serious about this? 

Regardless of whether or not you believe in that forensic data (which is, hacker wise, kind of a slam dunk) can you at least concede that the US government has taken the position that it is a Russian hack? That the official US position is that the Russians have deliberately attempted to manipulate the election by hacking a specific party? 

And therefore, if that is their position, then the next follows. 

8 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Assange is not another country. He's a person.

Again, where is the evidence that Russia is the source of the information (such as it is) that he's sharing?

Okay, you are serious about this. Gotcha. Let's see - there's this very broad esquire piece outlining the situation and Russia's involvement. For a bit more wonky, there's a wired article about it. And if you really want wonkiness, you can read the actual Crowdstrike report. Note also that the US intelligence agencies have a whole lot of private ability to determine the source of hacks and whatnot, as Edward Snowden indicates as well.

 

[Ariadne23]

He kinda has a point in that in the future, since WikiLeaks gives no info regarding even the type of source, we may not know if it's state-sponsored hackers or another Snowden. But your point seems to largely rest on the type and/or quality of info published in any case, yeah?

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

He kinda has a point in that in the future, since WikiLeaks gives no info regarding even the type of source, we may not know if it's state-sponsored hackers or another Snowden. But your point seems to largely rest on the type and/or quality of info published in any case, yeah?

Part of it is exactly that it is the type and quality of the information. I am willing to buy that regardless of the source, important information that is critical to a society and ideally nonpartisan in its scope, that should be protected. So the hypothetical Canadian hacked intelligence indicates Trump is eating kittens thing - that's more allowed. 

That being said, I still think that it's reasonable for the US government to try and reduce or remove the risk of stolen private government data being leaked to the world, period, and moreover I think it's very reasonable of them to do this via diplomacy. I consider Snowden one of the most heroic people alive, but I also think that it's reasonable that the US government says that it causes problems for diplomacy for Russia to harbor him and aiding and abetting him is a problem for diplomatic systems. 

[DunderMifflin]

Certainly its understandable to be mad if Russia is attempting to influence the elections, because that's just what ppl do. When something percieved as bad happens to you then it's pretty natural to want to put a stop to it if you have the power.

At the same time it's pretty hypocritical of the US government. It's been meddling and influencing foreign elections and world leaders for decades. Even resorting to murder to stop ones they don't like.

[Swordfish]

21 hours ago, Kalbear said:

So why frame it as a matter of US freedom of speech then? What rights does an extraterritorial person living at the grace of Ecuador have, and why can't the US ask that question.

I don't know for certain that this is the case, but it logically follows. Namely, Assange's internet was not shut down after Snowden. It was not shut down after the DNC hack in July. It was not even shut down later. It was, however, shut down after the US stated publicly that Russia was behind the hack. It is not causative necessarily, but the correlation is definitely there. 

Put it another way: why would shutting him down now make sense instead of, say, in July? Or 3 years ago? Why not shut him down after the DNC reveals? If you're going for the idea that it's for Clinton's sake, doesn't it make a hell of a lot more sense to do so much earlier? I am totally in favor of whistleblowers, as I've said repeatedly on this thread. I made a pretty long argument in favor of a wikileaks organization existing - which you even responded to. What i think very strongly is that releasing hacked emails from the DNC and Podesta's emails in bulk is not actually whistleblowing in any sense of the word. If you wanted to release the DWS stuff on its own to show her corruption - that makes sense. Releasing Podesta's risotto recipe - how the hell is that in support of whistleblowing? That's just a pure invasion of privacy, full stop.

 

Well... OK.  That's fair enough. THough I think you could make the argument that anything short of full release would be subject to 'out of context' spin.  but I don't know what it has to do with the state department suppressing the release of information unless you believe what they are suppressing is more risotto recipes.  And if so, why are these risotto recipes so important tat this particular moment in history?

 

 

 

Quote

The evidence that it's a Russian hack? Are you serious about this? 

Regardless of whether or not you believe in that forensic data (which is, hacker wise, kind of a slam dunk) can you at least concede that the US government has taken the position that it is a Russian hack? That the official US position is that the Russians have deliberately attempted to manipulate the election by hacking a specific party? 

And therefore, if that is their position, then the next follows. 

Okay, you are serious about this. Gotcha. Let's see - there's this very broad esquire piece outlining the situation and Russia's involvement. For a bit more wonky, there's a wired article about it. And if you really want wonkiness, you can read the actual Crowdstrike report. Note also that the US intelligence agencies have a whole lot of private ability to determine the source of hacks and whatnot, as Edward Snowden indicates as well.

Again, I think you use a highly convenient definition of 'manipulate' here.

Let's not forget, in the case of the DNC, we are not talking about state secrets.  We're talking about, at least ostensibly, exposing the misbehavior of the DNC.  If the information is accurate, I don't see why the fact that it comes form the russians is particularly concerning, after all, virtually all 'leaked' information is likely stolen from someone, by someone with an agenda.  This seems to me to be a narrative of fear stemming from 'OMG the evil russians'. This is like, right out of the Reagan playbook, pretty much.

If the DNC doesn't want material coming out that negatively impacts their candidates, then they should stop engaging in the kind of misbehavior that can become public.  This is, after all, the entire function of whistleblowers.

And having the state department now intervening to attempt to suppress this information, which is largely pertaining to the same political party that runs the state department?  That's pretty problematic, IMO.  And I'd be willing to bet you'd find it problematic as well, if this was about Trump and not about the DNC.  

 

 

 

[Swordfish]

21 hours ago, Ariadne23 said:

If the Canadian government had evidence of voter fraud and shared it with...WikiLeaks? And did not contact the appropriate US authorities?

What if Ultron intercepted credible information that uplifted dolphins were hijacking the US election and shared it with WikiLeaks? Would it be hacking when he can't help it? Would the dolphins be under UN jurisdiction? Would Cap sign the accords?

 

Why are you dodging the question?  It's a pretty straight forward hypothetical.

 

[DanteGabriel]

Esquire article on the investigation into the DNC hacks:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

Well... OK.  That's fair enough. THough I think you could make the argument that anything short of full release would be subject to 'out of context' spin.  but I don't know what it has to do with the state department suppressing the release of information unless you believe what they are suppressing is more risotto recipes.  And if so, why are these risotto recipes so important tat this particular moment in history?

There are other ways to release it such that the relevant data is presented and the rest omitted. 

And again, I don't think that the state department cares about suppressing more data one way or another. You keep trying to pin that on me, and that's not what I'm saying at all. That is your argument, not mine.

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

Again, I think you use a highly convenient definition of 'manipulate' here.

Let's not forget, in the case of the DNC, we are not talking about state secrets.  We're talking about, at least ostensibly, exposing the misbehavior of the DNC.  If the information is accurate, I don't see why the fact that it comes form the russians is particularly concerning, after all, virtually all 'leaked' information is likely stolen from someone, by someone with an agenda.  This seems to me to be a narrative of fear stemming from 'OMG the evil russians'. This is like, right out of the Reagan playbook, pretty much.

You're all over the map here.

The state department is concerned that a foreign government is willfully and deliberately attempting to influence and manipulate the US democratic process. This is not only my opinion, this is what has been stated by Obama. It doesn't matter about if it is the DNC or not - any more than it mattered that Nixon broke into Watergate to steal fairly boring data. The important key here is that the US has credible intelligence to indicate that Russia is specifically attempting to affect the election.

It isn't specifically an issue with the Russians at all, save Trump's weird-ass relationship with him. But that's immaterial. 

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

If the DNC doesn't want material coming out that negatively impacts their candidates, then they should stop engaging in the kind of misbehavior that can become public.  This is, after all, the entire function of whistleblowers.

No, that's a huge mischaracterization of privacy rights and laws. The function of whistleblowers is not to alert people to things that are negative impacts; it is to reveal actual laws being broken and conspiracy to cover those actions up. Private leaks might be interesting and often salacious, but that is true of basically anyone's email ever. What you're saying is that if you are working in politics then you cannot ever assume privacy, you can never talk badly about anyone else, ever, and you can't ever even engage in anything that might be taken out of context, ever. That's ludicrous. 

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

And having the state department now intervening to attempt to suppress this information, which is largely pertaining to the same political party that runs the state department?  That's pretty problematic, IMO.  And I'd be willing to bet you'd find it problematic as well, if this was about Trump and not about the DNC.  

 

Again, there is no evidence that the state department is attempting to suppress any information. That's your spin. There is evidence that they are attempting to stop a foreign government from attempting to influence the US election by means of unlawfully obtained data. Again, wikileaks has operated for years and done FAR more damaging information before - why not attempt to use political power then? Or worse? Wikileaks has done a lot more damage to HRC earlier - why not stop then? It doesn't make sense. There's no correlation to data being bad for a campaign == state  work. There IS a correlation to data being proven to have been stolen by foreign agency with express desire to influence the election == state work. 

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There are other ways to release it such that the relevant data is presented and the rest omitted. 

And again, I don't think that the state department cares about suppressing more data one way or another. You keep trying to pin that on me, and that's not what I'm saying at all. That is your argument, not mine.

You're all over the map here.

The state department is concerned that a foreign government is willfully and deliberately attempting to influence and manipulate the US democratic process. This is not only my opinion, this is what has been stated by Obama. It doesn't matter about if it is the DNC or not - any more than it mattered that Nixon broke into Watergate to steal fairly boring data. The important key here is that the US has credible intelligence to indicate that Russia is specifically attempting to affect the election.

It isn't specifically an issue with the Russians at all, save Trump's weird-ass relationship with him. But that's immaterial. 

No, that's a huge mischaracterization of privacy rights and laws. The function of whistleblowers is not to alert people to things that are negative impacts; it is to reveal actual laws being broken and conspiracy to cover those actions up. Private leaks might be interesting and often salacious, but that is true of basically anyone's email ever. What you're saying is that if you are working in politics then you cannot ever assume privacy, you can never talk badly about anyone else, ever, and you can't ever even engage in anything that might be taken out of context, ever. That's ludicrous. 

Again, there is no evidence that the state department is attempting to suppress any information. That's your spin. There is evidence that they are attempting to stop a foreign government from attempting to influence the US election by means of unlawfully obtained data. Again, wikileaks has operated for years and done FAR more damaging information before - why not attempt to use political power then? Or worse? Wikileaks has done a lot more damage to HRC earlier - why not stop then? It doesn't make sense. There's no correlation to data being bad for a campaign == state  work. There IS a correlation to data being proven to have been stolen by foreign agency with express desire to influence the election == state work. 

We are at an impasse here.

I understand your position, you are ok with the state department attempting to suppress this information because some of it comes from Russian government sources, and the Russian government has an agenda, regardless of the actual veracity of the information.  I.E. - Even if the information demonstrates malfeasance on the part of the DNC, and even if it's accurate, it ought to be suppressed because that information could reflect negatively on a particular candidate.

I am more concerned about the content of the information and providing transparency into the misdeeds of the people running the country, and less concerned about the motives of the source, since all leaked data is essentially stolen, and there isn't really a meaningfully consistent way to filter on this.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

 

 

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

We are at an impasse here.

I understand your position, you are ok with the state department attempting to suppress this information because some of it comes from Russian government sources, and the Russian government has an agenda, regardless of the actual veracity of the information.

 I.E. - Even if the information demonstrates malfeasance on the part of the DNC, and even if it's accurate, it ought to be suppressed because that information could reflect negatively on a particular candidate.

No, that's not my position, and you don't understand it at all. You continue to paint me with this, and it continues to be wrong.

My position is that the state department does not care about the information whatsoever. Another point in this favor is that the US absolutely has the power and likely the justification to bring down Wikileaks right this instant - and has not done so. Because the information is not the issue. 

What the US is interested in is actually prosecuting criminals involved in espionage, and making sure other countries are not aiding and abetting those criminals. Again, this follows because Assange is being targeted and Wikileaks as a website is not. And one of the ways they can do this (as is the case with every extraterritorial breaking of law) is by using the state department to influence the other country. 

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

I am more concerned about the content of the information and providing transparency into the misdeeds of the people running the country, and less concerned about the motives of the source, since all leaked data is essentially stolen, and there isn't really a meaningfully consistent way to filter on this.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Do you believe that the US has a right to prosecute foreign actors who break laws? Because that's what I'm talking about.

[Swordfish]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, that's not my position, and you don't understand it at all. You continue to paint me with this, and it continues to be wrong.My position is that the state department does not care about the information whatsoever. Another point in this favor is that the US absolutely has the power and likely the justification to bring down Wikileaks right this instant - and has not done so. Because the information is not the issue. 

If they don't care about the information, there's no reason to do anything, much less cut off his access to the internet, which is useful basically only for the purposes in this case of moving information around.

If they don't care about the information at all, then you're going to have to explain to me specifically why cutting his internet access is important.

 

Quote

What the US is interested in is actually prosecuting criminals involved in espionage, and making sure other countries are not aiding and abetting those criminals. Again, this follows because Assange is being targeted and Wikileaks as a website is not. And one of the ways they can do this (as is the case with every extraterritorial breaking of law) is by using the state department to influence the other country. 

 

Generally, but not exclusively, espionage involves state secrets.  Which the DNC information is not, really.  So though you keep using that word, and it's technically correct, it's a bit of a stretch.  

 

Quote

Do you believe that the US has a right to prosecute foreign actors who break laws? Because that's what I'm talking about.

What laws has Assange been charged with breaking by the US government?  And are you equating pressuring the Ecuadorians to eliminate his internet access with prosecution here?

Again, we are not going to agree on this......  We are fundamentally at opposite ends of this argument.

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

If they don't care about the information, there's no reason to do anything, much less cut off his access to the internet, which is useful basically only for the purposes in this case of moving information around.

If they don't care about the information at all, then you're going to have to explain to me specifically why cutting his internet access is important.

Because it stops him from being able to easily communicate with potentially criminals? It's a pretty standard law enforcement ploy, actually. 

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

 

Generally, but not exclusively, espionage involves state secrets.  Which the DNC information is not, really.  So though you keep using that word, and it's technically correct, it's a bit of a stretch.  

Corporate espionage is a thing too, but so is the act of attempting to destabilize an election. Again, the problem isn't necessarily the act, it's the deliberate attempt to use that act as a means of espionage. The real issue that Obama is pissed about is that Russia is attempting to influence the US election. Which is an act of espionage. 

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

What laws has Assange been charged with breaking by the US government?  And are you equating pressuring the Ecuadorians to eliminate his internet access with prosecution here?

Again, we are not going to agree on this......  We are fundamentally at opposite ends of this argument.

Assange hasn't been charged with anything. My suspicion is that State believes that Assange has been interacting and helping those who have broken laws and committed acts of espionage against the US, which is what I stated above. And State telling Ecuador 'hey, you know you're aiding and abetting a person who is aiding and abetting enemies of the US' is all that was needed. This is also, likely, why Ecuador cut off his internet access but didn't kick him out. Hanging out with Assange and giving him refuge is fine; allowing him to talk with criminals on their dime is not. 

You still didn't answer the question: does the US have the right to attempt to prosecute criminal activities by foreign nationals?

[Swordfish]

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Because it stops him from being able to easily communicate with potentially criminals? It's a pretty standard law enforcement ploy, actually. 

But why bother if they don't care what he's talking to them about?

Quote

Corporate espionage is a thing too, but so is the act of attempting to destabilize an election. Again, the problem isn't necessarily the act, it's the deliberate attempt to use that act as a means of espionage. The real issue that Obama is pissed about is that Russia is attempting to influence the US election. Which is an act of espionage. 

Attempting to influence an election qualifies as espionage now?

Uh.....  OK?  

Quote

 

You still didn't answer the question: does the US have the right to attempt to prosecute criminal activities by foreign nationals?

 

Of course.  But as you pointed out, the US has not charged Assange with anything.  So I'm not sure how this is relevant.

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

But why bother if they don't care what he's talking to them about?

They don't care about the secrets being released. They care about aiding and abetting other criminals. Again, it has nothing to do with information. You do know that there are other things to do on the internet than post illicit emails, right?

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

Attempting to influence an election qualifies as espionage now?

Uh.....  OK?  

Yes, as does sabotage. Espionage is simply the practice of using spies. Attempting to influence the election by a foreign government is by US definition an act of espionage. 

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

Of course.  But as you pointed out, the US has not charged Assange with anything.  So I'm not sure how this is relevant.

Assange is (by the US) known to be in contact with people they consider foreign agents attempting to commit acts of espionage. One way to deal with criminals or suspected criminals is to isolate them from anyone that might aid them so that they become more desperate or attempt to contact in more easily monitored ways. Again, this is pretty standard police work stuff. I don't understand why it's so hard for you to get. 

[Swordfish]

Just now, Kalbear said:

They don't care about the secrets being released. They care about aiding and abetting other criminals. Again, it has nothing to do with information. You do know that there are other things to do on the internet than post illicit emails, right?

You're right.  They probably just want him to lose in his fantasy league. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Swordfish said:

You're right.  They probably just want him to lose in his fantasy league. 

Again, I ask - if it was important to suppress Wikileaks information, why not just kill the page? At the very least it would eliminate any chance of more going on - which has still happened, by the way. And it's pretty trivial for the US to kill that website in any number of ways if it chose to do so. 

Plus, stopping Assange's internet doesn't stop Wikileaks as an organization either. It just stops Assange. If your goal is to suppress information that doesn't help at all. If your goal is to limit the ability for known criminals to contact someone, it does.