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

[Boris the Blade]

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That the US is attacking Russia? No, I don't believe that is happening right this second - or at least I don't think the overt part of it is happening. 

I don't see how it's a gaffe from Clinton given that she's not, ya know, in the state department. I also don't see it as much in the way of censorial - especially given that Republicans are coming out right now and saying 'no, you shouldn't use this'. There's a difference between hitting wikileaks for leaking information and hitting wikileaks because they are consciously aiding espionage activities by a foreign government.

Didn't you know? There is no difference between the two and that Clinton is responsible for everything?

[Swordfish]

45 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That the US is attacking Russia? No, I don't believe that is happening right this second - or at least I don't think the overt part of it is happening. 

 

 

You're using a highly suspect and convenient definition of 'attack' here.  We are basically talking about spying.

I'd be highly disappointed in our intelligence services if this is the case.

There are plenty of instances of these types of activities being undertaken by our government, so I think you're being(perhaps intentionally) naive here.

 

Quote

I don't see how it's a gaffe from Clinton given that she's not, ya know, in the state department. I also don't see it as much in the way of censorial - especially given that Republicans are coming out right now and saying 'no, you shouldn't use this'. There's a difference between hitting wikileaks for leaking information and hitting wikileaks because they are consciously aiding espionage activities by a foreign government.

Ha!  So many assumptions here....  But of course, the issue is not with Wiki leaks.  Wiki leaks still has access to the internet.

This is a direct action against an individual.

 

18 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said:

Didn't you know? There is no difference between the two and that Clinton is responsible for everything?

Oh geez.  You guys really have fallen in love with the false equivalence fallacy, huh?

I guess if all you have is a hammer.....

[Kalbear]

32 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

You're using a highly suspect and convenient definition of 'attack' here.  We are basically talking about spying.

I'd be highly disappointed in our intelligence services if this is the case.

There are plenty of instances of these types of activities being undertaken by our government, so I think you're being(perhaps intentionally) naive here.

I'm saying Obama, specifically, authorized a CIA action against Russia to retaliate for the hacks. That is in addition to whatever else our spying systems are doing. Are you not aware of that?

32 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Ha!  So many assumptions here....  But of course, the issue is not with Wiki leaks.  Wiki leaks still has access to the internet.

This is a direct action against an individual.

Sure. So?

 

[Swordfish]

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm saying Obama, specifically, authorized a CIA action against Russia to retaliate for the hacks. That is in addition to whatever else our spying systems are doing. Are you not aware of that?

 

 

Of course I'm aware of it.  Your contention was that we are not doing anything like this currently, which I found to be pretty odd.  Glad you've backed off of that position.

Quote

Sure. So?

So it negates your whole point, which I'll remind you was this:

Quote

There's a difference between hitting wikileaks for leaking information and hitting wikileaks because they are consciously aiding espionage activities by a foreign government.

It certainly gives the appearance, at the very least, that the reason you don't care about this is because you believe he is being unfair to HRC.

I find that highly problematic, and I'd bet money that you would also find this problematic if the situation were reversed.

[Tijgy]

5 hours ago, Ariadne23 said:

ETA: Having now read more of their stuff...is it possible Todd and Clare Hammond are just random crazy people, and not so much the front for some shadowy conspiracy smear campaign?

I do not think they are really crazy/delusional. They are at least smart enough to realize they had to become part of an United Nations Programm so they are able to put a report against Assange on the ground "they are collegues" with another part of the UN (Working Group Arbitrary Detention) and on the fact they have the obligation to act against sexual abuse, and to defend human rights. (I am not even really sure members of that UN Global Compact do have the right to do that, but a normal company without any UN-connection would certainly not been able to do that)

That Program should really start to think about their applications process. They should require a serious audit/report before a company could become part of this programm and start to pretend they want to defend the human rights or give those companies another status than a member (candidate member or whatever).

And I will certainly not call people who are willingly to use the UN, human rights and the fight against sexual abuse and crimes so they can make some false accusations against someone as "just random crazy" people. These are horrible crimes and also very difficult to prove. It is heartbreaking how many cases do not lead to an conviction. And if people make false accusations, people might even tend to believe abuse victims even less. And then in this case the accusations are made by a company who is using his status as a fighter for women and human rights as UN Member to strengthen his claim? If those claims are indeed false, I consider those people as very twisted human beings.

[Kalbear]

23 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Of course I'm aware of it.  Your contention was that we are not doing anything like this currently, which I found to be pretty odd.  Glad you've backed off of that position.

No - my contention was not that at all. I was specifically referring to the attack Obama authorized. 

23 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

So it negates your whole point, which I'll remind you was this:

Sorry then - in this context, wikileaks and Assange are essentially interchangeable, as he is the only known person who is actually working on it and is the leader of the organization. 

23 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

It certainly gives the appearance, at the very least, that the reason you don't care about this is because you believe he is being unfair to HRC.

I find that highly problematic, and I'd bet money that you would also find this problematic if the situation were reversed.

Good thing that that's not the reason I don't care about it, then! Because yeah, that would be really problematic if I thought it was because he was being unfair to HRC. 

So let's be really clear here:

• I suspect that the Ecuadoreans decided to stop giving Assange internet (assuming they did) because they did not want to get in trouble with the US in any way
• This is likely because Ecuador and the entire region is shifting away from Russia and China in the wake of Venezuela's collapse
• It's also possible the State department put pressure on them to stop harboring Assange
• The reason that this is likely the case is not because Wikileaks is damaging Clinton's chances (it really isn't) but because Obama and the State Department have reasonable intelligence that states Assange is directly working with Russian agents in an attempt to undermine the US election and this is really pissing Obama off
• This is backed up somewhat by another action taken earlier, which was that a Russian hacker was arrested in Prague by Czech and FBI authorities regarding the DNC hack
• None of this has anything to do with the child dating crap
• I don't have a single problem with the US going after people attempting to undermine its election when all they're doing is using statecraft, regardless of who is in power. 

[Ariadne23]

11 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

And I will certainly not call people who are willingly to use the UN, human rights and the fight against sexual abuse and crimes so they can make some false accusations against someone as "just random crazy" people.

Have you read their blog?

Whenever they do not get something they want, it's because there is some huge conspiracy that, of course, they are the center of, and they stage some big show of standing up for their rights or whatever. This is not the first time.

[The Anti-Targ]

I don't see why there is any need for pressure from State onto Ecuador. You know every government has its internet acceptable use code of conduct. I'm sure that, for most countries "influencing the election of a foreign country" sits outside of that acceptable use, covert ops notwithstanding.
 

If State can provide a reasonable argument for why Assange's recent actions have attempted, or appear to attempt to directly influence the US elections, the it would be inappropriate for Ecuador not to act and require Assange to use an independant ISP to continue his wikileaks work.

Perhaps they should set him up in an isolated area and have a separate private internet connection piped into the room, paid for by Assange's benefactors, so that he uses no Ecuador embassy computer equipment or internet service to conduct his Wikileaks activity. Really, Assange should never have been given access to the Ecuador embassy internet from day 1.  Frankly I don't understand why they allowed him to have the access this long.

[DunderMifflin]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I don't see why there is any need for pressure from State onto Ecuador. You know every government has its internet acceptable use code of conduct. I'm sure that, for most countries "influencing the election of a foreign country" sits outside of that acceptable use, covert ops notwithstanding.
 

If State can provide a reasonable argument for why Assange's recent actions have attempted, or appear to attempt to directly influence the US elections, the it would be inappropriate for Ecuador not to act and require Assange to use an independant ISP to continue his wikileaks work.

Perhaps they should set him up in an isolated area and have a separate private internet connection piped into the room, paid for by Assange's benefactors, so that he uses no Ecuador embassy computer equipment or internet service to conduct his Wikileaks activity. Really, Assange should never have been given access to the Ecuador embassy internet from day 1.  Frankly I don't understand why they allowed him to have the access this long.

Do you mean influence by way of commiting crimes? I wouldn't think that alone would be grounds in most places. 

I mean if somebody in a foreign country writes a pro Trump internet article, that could be considered influencing the election. Or at least trying to.

 

[Swordfish]

20 hours ago, Kalbear said:

No - my contention was not that at all. I was specifically referring to the attack Obama authorized. 

Sorry then - in this context, wikileaks and Assange are essentially interchangeable, as he is the only known person who is actually working on it and is the leader of the organization. 

Good thing that that's not the reason I don't care about it, then! Because yeah, that would be really problematic if I thought it was because he was being unfair to HRC. 

So let's be really clear here:

• I suspect that the Ecuadoreans decided to stop giving Assange internet (assuming they did) because they did not want to get in trouble with the US in any way
• This is likely because Ecuador and the entire region is shifting away from Russia and China in the wake of Venezuela's collapse
• It's also possible the State department put pressure on them to stop harboring Assange
• The reason that this is likely the case is not because Wikileaks is damaging Clinton's chances (it really isn't) but because Obama and the State Department have reasonable intelligence that states Assange is directly working with Russian agents in an attempt to undermine the US election and this is really pissing Obama off
• This is backed up somewhat by another action taken earlier, which was that a Russian hacker was arrested in Prague by Czech and FBI authorities regarding the DNC hack
• None of this has anything to do with the child dating crap
• I don't have a single problem with the US going after people attempting to undermine its election when all they're doing is using statecraft, regardless of who is in power. 

We'll jsut ahve to agree to disagree.  I think you're using a highly ambiguous and convenient definition of 'undermining' here.

If there's evidence that Assange is working with the Russians, I'd love to see it.

Virtually every bullet point you've listed here is mere speculation, as far as I can tell.

I don't want the state department pressuring foreign governments to silence dissent.  And you're free to believe that none of this has anything to do with HRC if you want, but that is a position that is beyond the scope of believably, given everything we know about how the party machines work, and the position she's taken on Assange in the past.

As afar as WIkileaks goes, I don't believe it's true that Assange is the only member of Wikileaks, but if you have information to the contrary, I'm happy to look at it.

 

15 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I don't see why there is any need for pressure from State onto Ecuador. You know every government has its internet acceptable use code of conduct. I'm sure that, for most countries "influencing the election of a foreign country" sits outside of that acceptable use, covert ops notwithstanding.
 

If State can provide a reasonable argument for why Assange's recent actions have attempted, or appear to attempt to directly influence the US elections, the it would be inappropriate for Ecuador not to act and require Assange to use an independant ISP to continue his wikileaks work.

Perhaps they should set him up in an isolated area and have a separate private internet connection piped into the room, paid for by Assange's benefactors, so that he uses no Ecuador embassy computer equipment or internet service to conduct his Wikileaks activity. Really, Assange should never have been given access to the Ecuador embassy internet from day 1.  Frankly I don't understand why they allowed him to have the access this long.

Why is it problematic to attempt to influence an election?  on those grounds we could argue reasonably to shut down the entire internet more or less.

13 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

We'll jsut ahve to agree to disagree.  I think you're using a highly ambiguous and convenient definition of 'undermining' here.

If there's evidence that Assange is working with the Russians, I'd love to see it.

I don't know for certain, but my suspicion is that it is occurring. It would not be particularly hard for the US to determine it one way or another.

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

Virtually every bullet point you've listed here is mere speculation, as far as I can tell.

Yes, that's correct. Which is why I said things like 'I suspect'.

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

I don't want the state department pressuring foreign governments to silence dissent.  And you're free to believe that none of this has anything to do with HRC if you want, but that is a position that is beyond the scope of believably, given everything we know about how the party machines work, and the position she's taken on Assange in the past.

I don't want to silence dissent either. That said, there is a very clear difference in my mind between silencing dissent and specifically working against foreign agents that are hacking the US, and specifically using state resources to fight that seems perfectly adequate. 

This is especially the case given that Assange is not actually a US citizen. 

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

As afar as WIkileaks goes, I don't believe it's true that Assange is the only member of Wikileaks, but if you have information to the contrary, I'm happy to look at it.

I didn't say he was the only member. He is the only 'known' member. The rest of the group is unknown. 

 

[Ariadne23]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

Why is it problematic to attempt to influence an election?

On those grounds, what's wrong with Watergate? Or breaking in to Daniel Ellsburg's psychiatrist office? In the latter case, they planned to release that information to the press as well. Breaking and entering and hacking seem no different. There's no whistleblower here with the DNC emails.

In other words, is WikiLeaks more like Ellsburg himself than the Nixon administration? Or not?

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't know for certain, but my suspicion is that it is occurring. It would not be particularly hard for the US to determine it one way or another.

Yes, that's correct. Which is why I said things like 'I suspect'.

I don't want to silence dissent either. That said, there is a very clear difference in my mind between silencing dissent and specifically working against foreign agents that are hacking the US, and specifically using state resources to fight that seems perfectly adequate. 

This is especially the case given that Assange is not actually a US citizen. 

 

 

Well...  Then once there is proof that he's a russian agent, you'll have an argument.  Until then.....

The fact that he isn't a US citizen is in some ways even more problematic.

You're making a lot of leaps here to connect the dots the way you want them to be connected.

It's an interesting and convenient time for the left to start placing their trust in the US intelligence agencies, that's for sure.

 

Quote

I didn't say he was the only member. He is the only 'known' member. The rest of the group is unknown. 

The wikipedia page disagrees with you.

 

Quote

WikiLeaks /ˈwɪkiliːks/ is an international non-profit journalistic[6][7][8] organisation that publishes secret information, news leaks,[9] and classified media from anonymous sources.[10] Its website, initiated in 2006 in Iceland by the organisation Sunshine Press,[11] claimed a database of more than 1.2 million documents within a year of its launch.[12] Julian Assange, an Australian Internet activist, is generally described as its founder, editor-in-chief, and director.[13] Kristinn Hrafnsson, Joseph Farrell, and Sarah Harrison are the only other publicly known and acknowledged associates of Julian Assange.[14] Hrafnsson is also a member of Sunshine Press Productions along with Assange, Ingi Ragnar Ingason, and Gavin MacFadyen.[15][16]

 

 

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

On those grounds, what's wrong with Watergate? Or breaking in to Daniel Ellsburg's psychiatrist office? In the latter case, they planned to release that information to the press as well. Breaking and entering and hacking seem no different. There's no whistleblower here with the DNC emails.

In other words, is WikiLeaks more like Ellsburg himself than the Nixon administration? Or not?

I'm not really following this logic.  What crime are you accusing Assange of here?

[The Anti-Targ]

15 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

Do you mean influence by way of commiting crimes? I wouldn't think that alone would be grounds in most places. 

I mean if somebody in a foreign country writes a pro Trump internet article, that could be considered influencing the election. Or at least trying to.

 

I mean, acceptable use of the internet service for which the government / embassy pays. Nothing wrong with private citizens using private internet services not paid for by the govt to say whatever they want. But if you use an internet service paid for by the govt then engaging in election influence is not acceptable use of that govt paid internet service. It's why Assange should never have used the Ecuadorian embassy's internet for Wikileaks work from the get go.

 

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

Why is it problematic to attempt to influence an election?  on those grounds we could argue reasonably to shut down the entire internet more or less.

It isn't for private individual using equipment and internet access paid for by private money. It's problematic for an Ecuadorian govt (taxpayer) paid internet service to be used to influence the election of any govt, including its own in most situations. 

[Ariadne23]

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I'm not really following this logic.  What crime are you accusing Assange of here?

I guess if you want to get technical, the hacking itself would be the underlying offense and Assange could be guilty of conspiracy?

But I think the concern is really more about whether Ecuador has any justifiable reason to cut his internet access for publishing (or soliciting?) materials stolen from from a campaign office during an election year?

[Swordfish]

53 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I mean, acceptable use of the internet service for which the government / embassy pays. Nothing wrong with private citizens using private internet services not paid for by the govt to say whatever they want. But if you use an internet service paid for by the govt then engaging in election influence is not acceptable use of that govt paid internet service. It's why Assange should never have used the Ecuadorian embassy's internet for Wikileaks work from the get go.

 

It isn't for private individual using equipment and internet access paid for by private money. It's problematic for an Ecuadorian govt (taxpayer) paid internet service to be used to influence the election of any govt, including its own in most situations. 

Got it.  That makes sense.

51 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

I guess if you want to get technical, the hacking itself would be the underlying offense and Assange could be guilty of conspiracy?

But I think the concern is really more about whether Ecuador has any justifiable reason to cut his internet access for publishing (or soliciting?) materials stolen from from a campaign office during an election year?

Ecuador can do whatever it wants.  My concern really is about what the state department is doing and why.

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Ecuador can do whatever it wants.  My concern really is about what the state department is doing and why.

Wait - you're objecting to the US talking to other countries about extraterritorial foreign citizens influencing the election using Ecuadorean resources? 

 

[Ariadne23]

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.

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Wait - you're objecting to the US talking to other countries about extraterritorial foreign citizens influencing the election using Ecuadorean resources? 

 

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.'