Ecuador Looks To Ban Wikileaks-like Offerings, Despite 'Housing' Assange

from the be-careful-who-your-friends-are dept

We had always pointed out that Ecuador was a somewhat odd choice for Julian Assange to seek asylum with, given that the country doesn't have a great track record on press freedoms. And some recent actions have suggested that, even as Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, the relationship between Assange and Ecuador is strained. Given that, perhaps it's no surprise that Ecuador is now contemplating a new bill that would criminalize publishing classified documents, which would certainly turn a significant part of Wikileaks into a criminal operation:

Pablo Romero, the director of Ecuador’s intelligence agency SENAIN, asked the Justice Committee of Ecuador’s National Assembly on August 8 to draft legislation that would “criminalize the disclosure of confidential information of the State” and require would-be publishers to seek government approval before publication. Romero gave as an example the hypothetical publication of special agents’ salaries.

The bill would outlaw the publication of classified documents even if they had previously been published abroad.

That, of course, is a pretty big attack on press freedoms, which does seem slightly ironic. I know that people will likely use this to attack Assange, just as they attack Ed Snowden for ending up in Russia -- but in both cases that seems like misplaced anger. The anger should be towards countries putting in place such awful policies. The fact that Assange has ended up with Ecuador and Snowden with Russia has a lot more to do with the political realities of people trying to stay away from an over-aggressive American government that seems hell bent on putting both men in prison for as long as possible. Given that reality -- combined with things like the US pulling Snowden's passport -- they really had little choice. Yes, it would be great if believers in press freedom could go somewhere that actually respected press freedom, but there are, tragically, very few places that qualify these days -- and when the country that sets itself up as the biggest protector of press freedoms, the United States, is trampling those freedoms to try to get at these two guys, their options are exceptionally limited.

Filed Under: ecuador, free press, julian assange, wikileaks

Journalist For Time Magazine Announces His Eagerness To Defend US Drone Strike Killing Julian Assange

from the journalism! dept

We've already discussed the odd and somewhat sickening way in which certain mainstream journalists have been clearly cheering on the criminalization of investigative journalism, but Time Magazine's Michael Grunwald took it to a new and incredibly disgusting level this weekend, with a now deleted tweet in which he gleefully announced his eagerness to see the US kill Julian Assange, and then to defend the government for doing so:

In case you can't see that, it says:

I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange.

This isn't just cheering on despicable government actions -- including the extrajudicial execution of a fellow journalist -- but it's saying ahead of time that no matter what the situation, he'll be right there to back up the official party line from the government. Today's modern journalist, Michael Grunwald, is going beyond the typical stenographer role of so many journalists covering the government, to the point where he's directly letting the government know that he'll be their propagandist backing up a despicable and heinous act.

This has nothing to do with whether or not anyone likes Assange. From all the reports, he seems like a perfectly dislikable individual. I don't agree with many of his views on the world or how he goes about doing certain things that he does. But I certainly support his ability to stay alive.

Of course, this isn't new territory for Grunwald and Time Magazine. In "defending" his tweet, he pointed to a column he wrote a few months ago, in which he directly supports taking away Americans' rights if it means stopping terrorists.

Eventually, Grunwald deleted the tweet, but not so much because it's despicable and indefensible, but rather because leaving it up, according to Grunwald "gives Assange supporters a nice safe persecution complex to hide in." Only an hour later did he apologize, saying that the original tweet was "dumb."

Either way, why would Time Magazine employ someone who flat out joyfully proclaims his eagerness to support the US murdering the head of a competing news organization -- one that has shown what a joke Time Magazine has been in terms of holding the government accountable. What major government abuse stories has Time broken lately?

Filed Under: drones, extrajudicial killing, journalism, julian assange, michael grunwald, propaganda, time magazine

Ecuador Using Copyright To Try To Take Down Leaked Documents About Its Surveillance Practices

from the copyright-as-censorship dept

While Ecuador has received plenty of attention for granting asylum to Julian Assange and being one possible landing place for Ed Snowden, it's no secret that the country is not exactly known as a bastion of civil liberties protection. In fact, last year, just as it was granting Julian Assange asylum, there were reports coming out about highly questionable activities by the Ecuador government in extraditing someone who had exposed corruption. In that post, it was noted that Ecuardor scrapped its own rules requiring a warrant to investigate someone's IP address and has been known to seize the computers of critical journalists.

So, it should come as little surprise that while so much attention is on Ecuador, it was leaked to Buzzfeed that the country is in the middle of purchasing equipment for widespread surveillance, including a system called "GSM Interceptor" (subtle!) and some unmanned surveillance drones. Basically, the country does not have a great record on protecting civil liberties or freedom of the press.

But, here's where the story gets even more bizarre. Buzzfeed's reporters, Rosie Gray and Adrian Carrasquillo, had posted the various documents they got revealing these purchases on Scribd and embedded them beneath the story. Here's a screenshot: Could there be a copyright claim? Well, unlike the US, many countries do allow government documents to be covered by a form of copyright, but even so it seems ridiculous that Ecuador is clearly using copyright to try to stifle a free press in discussing its surveillance efforts. It's yet another example of copyright being used for censorship, made doubly ironic in that it came about while trying to stifle documents about its surveillance program that only came to light because the of possibility that it might offer political asylum to Ed Snowden for revealing US surveillance. Are there any places left on earth that actually do respect basic civil liberties?

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, ecuador, ed snowden, julian assange, leaks, surveillance

FBI Paid Off Wikileaks Insider To Be An Informant: Imagine If It Was The NY Times

from the that's-insane dept

People like to debate whether or not Wikileaks is or is not a "media property," but I can't see any definition of a media property under which Wikileaks would not fall. Yes, it publishes leaked documents, but so do many other media properties. Yes, it has a strong ideological viewpoint, but so do many other media properties. So it's rather stunning to read about the fact that a Wikileaks insider apparently spent some time as a paid informant for the FBI, handing over a variety of internet information on things happening within Wikileaks. Imagine if this was the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal, and it came out that an employee was getting paid by the FBI to reveal what those newspapers were working on. People would be up in arms, just like they were over the DOJ's spying on AP reporters and a Fox News reporter. Except, this wasn't just spying on a reporter, this was flat out paying off an insider to share internal information. That's incredible.

The entire story from Kevin Poulsen at Wired is worth reading, about how Icelandic teen Sigurdur Thordarson was taken under Julian Assange's wing and given a fair amount of autonomy within Wikileaks. The details suggest that Thordarson abused that position in many ways, including setting up a t-shirt sales site, supposedly to benefit Wikileaks, but where all the money went directly to his own bank account. But, that's really minor considering the key point: that the FBI actively worked with and continued to push Thordarson to get more info from Wikileaks, even after he'd left the organization. The DOJ is supposed to have rules about investigations of media properties for a variety of reasons, and paying off an insider seems like it goes way, way beyond what's appropriate.

Filed Under: doj, fbi, informant, journalism, julian assange, media, paid informant, sigurdur thordarson, surveillance, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Dear Everyone: Please Don't Turn Edward Snowden Into Julian Assange

from the focus-on-the-story,-please dept

As Tim Cushing recently noted, reports are that Edward Snowden is on the move. With supposed help from the Wikileaks organization, Snowden was supposed to have flown from Hong Kong to Russia, where he would later make flight to Cuba to eventually end up in Ecuador. However, dozens of journalists are said to have boarded that same flight to Cuba, only to find that Snowden's seat was empty. Per The Guardian:

My colleague Miriam Elder didn’t manage to get on that plane to Cuba – but she’s very glad, since it seems Edward Snowden never got on it either. I just spoke to her. She said Aeroflot officials had told her “with a little smirk” that they had been expecting Snowden too.

But Miriam pointed out that Snowden had never actually been sighted in Moscow, and there was actually no real evidence that he had ever been in Russia at all. Meanwhile a planeload of journalists are now off to spend the day in Cuba …

So, we're left to believe either that something of a shell game is going on, with Snowden doing a feint on one flight ostensibly to board another, or else the game is already over and someone, somewhere has Snowden in custody. And this is something we all really need to focus on because... well...

Actually, we don't need to focus on it. It's a story and there's nothing wrong with reporting on Snowden's whereabouts, but this is all beginning to smell far too much like a Wikileaks style thumb-fest, where all the attention is placed on the person rather than the story. That can't be allowed to happen. It'd be far too easy for the American government and the press to be able to shine a spotlight on Snowden as opposed to what he revealed. While the headlines are filled with breathless reporting on the real life game of Where's Snowden going on, less attention is paid to his leaks and what those revelations mean for the American system of government. That's how we lose any focus on John Kerry's incredible statement:

I suppose there is no small irony here. I mean, I wonder if Mr Snowden chose China and Russian assistance in his flight from justice because they're such powerful bastions of internet freedom, and I wonder if while he was in either of those countries he raised the question of internet freedom, since that seems to be what he champions.

The irony that exists, of course, is that the United States government has been caught hacking and surveilling those same countries. For Kerry to then turn and accuse them of risking a free internet, which wasn't even the crux of what Snowden revealed, is hubris so strong it might just power motor vehicles. What Snowden was actually exposing, of course, was the American government's policy of subversive collection of communications data globally. Sure, you can point to the Chinese and Russian governments and say they don't have a free and open internet, though I'd caution levying that charge against Hong Kong. Of course you can say that they have similar spying programs in place, too. But this isn't about China and Russia, it's about America and what Snowden revealed.

The lesson here is that Snowden can't turn into another Assange. The cult of personality is the worst kind of celebrity worship, since it distracts so completely our attention from the actual issues in this case. Focus on what is being revealed, not who is revealing it, I'm begging you.

Filed Under: cult of personality, ed snowden, edward snowden, julian assange, nsa, nsa surveillance

WSJ Claims That Wikileaks Is Not Journalism But Espionage By Taking A Bunch Of Quotes Out Of Context

from the reporting! dept

The Wall Street Journal's former publisher, Gordon Crovitz, has apparently decided to follow the lead of the NY Times' former managing editor Bill Keller in misrepresenting things having to do with Bradley Manning and Julian Assange to new and impressive heights. Crovitz has a history of being fact-challenged, especially when it comes to the internet, and his latest opinion piece entitled Aiding the Enemy Isn't Journalism is an impressive work of bad journalism. Let's start from the top.

It looks as if Pfc. Bradley Manning and Julian Assange will go down in history as outliers, not trend setters. There have been no copycat leaks of massive quantities of diplomatic and intelligence documents, despite how easy the Internet makes it to leak and the fact that more than four million Americans have clearance to access government secrets.

Um, might that have something to do with the fact that the US government went absolutely apeshit over the release and charged Manning with a variety of offenses that have the possibility of capital punishment? We've already discussed the fact that the administration's reaction likely created massive chilling effects for whistleblowers around the world. Pointing to the lack of anyone willing to step into that breach doesn't mean Manning was necessarily an "outlier." It just means the government's intimidation campaign against whistleblowers may have been quite effective.

Furthermore, requiring an exact "copycat" as the standard for whether or not leaking government docs was a one-time ordeal is just silly. Prior to Manning's leak, Wikileaks had a regular stream of important documents leaked to it, so I'm not sure what Crovitz thinks he's proving here.

Among the prosecution's more than 100 witnesses will be a Navy SEAL who participated in the raid in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden. He'll testify to finding Manning-Assange documents on the terrorist leader's computer. Prosecutors are seeking a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

How much do you want to bet that terrorists have read the Wall Street Journal as well at times? How does that matter?

The key element of this espionage charge is intent: Did Pfc. Manning mean to give intelligence to the enemy? In his 35-page plea, Pfc. Manning describes himself as a whistleblower, but he doesn't explain what he was blowing the whistle on. The documents didn't disclose government wrongdoing. Instead, WikiLeaks posted unedited diplomatic and intelligence cables that identified by name Iraqis, Afghans and others who were helping the U.S. war effort. People were outed as homosexuals in countries where that makes them a target for deadly violence. Prosecutors will identify a long list of victims.

And here, Crovitz is just lying. Either that or he's ignorant. First off, Manning highlighted some key things that he was blowing the whistle on in both his chat with Adrian Lamo and in his plea. Things like the "collateral murder" episode, in which US military helicopters shot reporters. I'd consider that (and the ensuing coverup) to be "government wrongdoing." Furthermore, it's simply untrue that Wikileaks just "posted unedited diplomatic and intelligence cables." Wikileaks worked with a small group of newspapers -- including the NY Times, The Guardian and others -- to sort through the leaked cables, redact sensitive information, and highlight which stories were important.

Building a case that Pfc. Manning knowingly gave intelligence to the enemy seems open and shut. The more interesting question is how this requirement of intent applies to Mr. Assange.

No, it doesn't seem "open and shut" at all. Having the press report on something embarrassing is not "knowingly giving intelligence to the enemy." If it is, then shouldn't Bob Woodward and his White House sources be facing similar charges? After all, Woodward's book Obama's War was recommended by Al Qaeda for people to read after the death of Osama bin Laden. Woodward's book contained much more classified info, including the code names for NSA programs, details of CIA activities in Afghanistan, and details about Chinese hackers breaking into Obama's computers. But somehow that's considered legitimate reporting, but Manning's activities are "an open and shut case" of knowingly giving intelligence to the enemy? That's ridiculous. Manning gave information to the press. It may have embarrassed the US at times, but that's not the same as giving "intelligence to the enemy."

President Obama has used the Espionage Act often, invoking it six times to bring cases against government officials for providing classified information to the media—twice the number of such cases brought by other presidents since the law was passed in 1917. So it's at least curious that Mr. Assange hasn't been charged.

It's not that curious at all when you realize that Wikileaks didn't "leak" information it had privileged access to, but rather worked with other news organizations to publish information that had been leaked to Wikileaks.

Bill Keller, a former executive editor of the New York Times, recently wrote: "As a matter of law I believe WikiLeaks and the New York Times are equally protected by the First Amendment." That misses the point. Unlike WikiLeaks, the mission of newspapers is to inform the public. Mr. Assange's stated mission is to undermine the U.S. That ought to make it much easier to prove that he intends to help the enemy.

This is a total whitewash of actual history. We actually wrote about Wikileaks right when it launched, and its goal from the beginning was also to "inform the public." And, early on it had little interest in the US. When it launched, we noted that it was focused on Asia, the Middle East and Africa -- areas where they were interested in exposing corruption, which is a public service. It's only the rewriting of history that suggests Wikileaks was about anyone trying to "undermine the US." I'm sure that, now, having seen everything the US has done to go absolutely apeshit about Wikileaks, that Assange doesn't have pleasant feelings towards the country (of which he is not and has never been a citizen), but it seems like an incredible leap beyond basic facts to argue that the mission of Wikileaks was to "undermine the US."

"An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think efficiently," [Assange] wrote in 2006, "cannot act to preserve itself."

It might help to read where that came from, and note that it actually builds off a quote from Teddy Roosevelt, which says: "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul this unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of statesmanship." Assange's "manifesto" may have been naive and silly, grandiose and full of itself, but that hardly makes it evidence of a plan to undermine the US specifically. It is a general call for stopping authoritarianism around the globe by increasing transparency and stopping the powers that be from communicating too much in secret, something that many people feel is a reasonable goal.

But news executives and media lawyers should think twice before treating Mr. Assange as if he were a journalist. If leaders in the news industry blur the distinction between their journalists and self-proclaimed enemies of the state like Mr. Assange, they may encourage prosecutors to make the same false equivalence.

Frankly, I'm no fan of Assange, who often seems incredibly self-important for no good reason, but Crovitz's willingness to toss out the press freedom he relies on, based on taking a few quotes and actions completely out of context to claim that a media organization can be declared the "enemy of the state" for wishing to change government to make it more open and more responsive to the will of the people is really frightening. That he doesn't realize how that can be twisted and turned around on himself and the wider Wall Street Journal directly is even more troubling.

Just for fun, how difficult would it be to make the case that Crovitz himself is an "enemy of the state"? Let's make this clear: in the following paragraph I am deliberately taking Crovitz's comments out of context, in the same way he did with Assange's (though, unlike Crovitz, I actually link to the original sources -- Crovitz just implies what he thinks Assange and Wikileaks have said most of the time). Let's go: In one recent column, he supports "a march on Washington" to change US policy to make it more immigrant friendly. So, he's advocating attacking our own government for the aid of foreigners? Hmmm... In another column, Crovitz actively calls for tech companies to become "united to go after overreaching government." That same column complains about the US government and laws they pass. That sounds like a call for revolution and overthrowing the US government. Clearly, he's an enemy of the state. In another piece he calls for ramping up the police state in the US, cheering on entrapment, which seems to clearly go against American ideals. In another piece, Crovitz cheers on France while criticizing the US government. In another story, he calls for using US taxpayer money to help Iran and China!

And that's just with a very, very quick stroll through some of Crovitz's recent opinion pieces. Meanwhile, the organization he writes for, The Wall Street Journal, is in the news today for supposedly bribing Chinese officials. Hmm...

Yes, my paragraph about Crovitz is totally bogus, but if he's willing to toss out freedom of the press, and twist statements about seeking more transparency and being against authoritarianism as being an "enemy of the state", well, he shouldn't be surprised when people show that he, too, is an enemy of the US.

Filed Under: bradley manning, espionage, gordon crovitz, journalism, julian assange
Companies: wikileaks

Collateral Censorship: Oxford Union Replaces Assange Speech Backdrop, Citing 'Copyright' Concerns

from the wrong-on-so-many-levels dept

Julian Assange recently gave an address, by video, to the Oxford Union Society. You can see a video of the whole thing here. When Assange is speaking, here's what you see: The background, you can see, is just an enlarged image of the Oxford Union logo. But that's not what Assange actually had behind him. According to Wikileaks, Assange purposely had put up a still image from the "collateral murder" video that Wikileaks had released, showing US soldiers firing on a Reuters journalist and some other civilians in Iraq. The plan, according to Assange, was to use that image "to highlight the importance of whistleblowers" to get out information such as that video.

It's bad enough that the Oxford Union digitally replaced the backdrop. However, even worse is the ridiculous excuse it gave. In response to Wikileaks' accusations, the Oxford Union claimed it replaced the image because it didn't want to violate the copyright in the video:

After taking extensive legal advice on this matter, the Union was advised not to display the background video in question for copyright reasons.

This is bogus on so many levels. First off, and most importantly, the video itself is a "work" of the US government, and as such is simply not protected by copyright law. Rather it is definitively in the public domain as per Section 105 of the Copyright Act. And, of course, even if it was subject to copyright, it would still be a ridiculous claim. There would be obvious fair use in merely showing a single still image from a longer video, especially given the context of the use and the speech. And, yes, this is in the UK, rather than the US, but even under UK "fair dealing" concepts, this would almost certainly be considered fair dealing.

Ridiculously, when Wikileaks explained this to the Oxford Union, it shot back with an even more confused response, focusing on the fact that nothing was "censored" and that this was all about "respecting copyright."

We would like to point out that none of the speeches made during the evening in question were 'censored'; neither was any part of the Q&A sessions.

Mr Assange's speech was broadcast in its entirety, and as such we would encourage people to appreciate the distinction between censorship and respecting copyright.

Except, that's not true. As Wikileaks has made clear, the image was an important part of the expression he was making -- and just because you use a visual, that does not mean that it does not count as a form of speech. But the bigger joke is the idea that this has anything, whatsoever, to do with "respecting" copyright. If you "respect" copyright, you understand the difference between what's in the public domain and what's not, and you don't claim you blocked public domain material to respect the copyright. That's the opposite of respecting copyright. It's bastardizing copyright for the purpose of stifling expression.

Filed Under: censorship, collateral murder, copyright, julian assange, oxford union

Julian Assange Moves Forward Plans To Run For Senate And Start A Wikileaks Political Party

from the governing-from-afar dept

It's been a while since we checked in on Julian Assange. Last we heard, the United States had just classified Wikileaks as an "enemy of the United States," but that was all the way back in September. This, of course, was after Assange had been granted asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK. With what has to seem like the entire world crumbling down around him, I'd have to guess that Assange is keeping a low, mum's the word profile.

Mr Assange said plans to register an Australian WikiLeaks party were ''significantly advanced''. He indicated he would be a Senate candidate, and added that "a number of very worthy people admired by the Australian public" have indicated their availability to stand for election on a party ticket.

Yes, Julian Assange, currently confined to Ecuador's embassy, is going to start his own political party. While many have focused on the news that he's running for Senate, that's not actually new -- having been previously reported back in March. In case you thought you had somehow slept through news that the US had dropped its investigation of Wikileaks or that Sweden no longer wanted to extradite him, you haven't: both issues are existing issues that might, possibly, get in the way of Assange actually serving as an elected official. However, as a wider party, what would the Wikileaks party stand for?

He said a WikiLeaks party would advance WikiLeaks' objectives of promoting openness in government and politics, and it would combat growing intrusions on individual privacy.

A laudable goal, and one that might find natural allies with The Pirate Party. Still, while (as with many things Assange-related) this has the feel of a publicity stunt, there's a chance that the more interesting idea is what will happen if the Wikileaks Party can really find others to be members and run for office:

If Mr Assange were elected but he was unable to return to Australia to take up his position, a nominee would occupy a Senate seat.

So, perhaps the real goal is to have someone high profile, like Assange, spearhead the effort of building out a party focused on these issues, even if there's little chance he can actually serve. Well, that or this is another example of Assange being a genuine pain in the ass.

Filed Under: australia, julian assange, politics, wikileaks, wikileaks party

US Military Classifies Wikileaks As 'Enemy Of The United States'

from the uh...-what? dept

Back when Wikileaks first released some State Department cables, creating quite the uproar among government officials, the Treasury Department was clear that it would not declare Wikileaks a terrorist organization or list Julian Assange as a "Specially Designated National" on the list, because it did not meet the proper criteria. However, a document from the Air Force, released under a Freedom of Information Act request, has revealed that Assange and Wikileaks have been declared "enemies of the US" in a specific investigation into a cyber systems analyst who dared to "express support for Wikileaks" and attended a pro-Wikileaks demonstration. By designating Wikileaks an enemy of the US, the military is effectively declaring that any contact with Wikileaks or its supporters could be deemed "communicating with the enemy" -- which can be punished severely (even death). For all sorts of reasons, this seems like a ridiculous and horrific overreaction. Even if you disagree with Wikileaks or how Assange goes about what he does, having the US government declare you an "enemy to the United States" for seeking to increase transparency seems both extreme and completely out of proportion with the reality of the situation.

Meanwhile, Assange himself was able to address the UN via video, in which he lashed out at the hypocrisy of the US government, defending freedom of speech with one breath, while at the same time seeking to bring down Wikileaks. While it's no secret that Assange and Wikileaks have embarrassed the US, it's a massive leap to go from that to claiming that it is an "enemy" of the United States. Just doing so could put incredible chilling effects on all sorts of journalists. The idea that leaking relevant and newsworthy information can get you classified as such has incredibly scary implications. It broadens the definition of an "enemy of the state" to ridiculous proportions, and begs to be abused by a government that doesn't seem to handle embarrassment particularly well. Even if you think Wikileaks goes too far or that Assange himself is an egomaniac, it seems that we should all be quite worried about the implications of declaring him and the organization enemies of the state for merely leaking information that they felt was newsworthy.

Filed Under: air force, enemy of the us, julian assange, us military
Companies: wikileaks

Just As Ecuador Grants Asylum To Assange, It Prepares To Extradite Blogger For Exposing Corruption

from the epic-failures dept

We just wrote about hypocrisy from Russia, condemning the UK over the Julian Assange situation at the same time that it was putting Pussy Riot in jail for political speech. As someone pointed out in our comments, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, including with Ecuador, who, at the same time it's granting asylum to Assange, is likely preparing to extradite a blogger who was granted asylum after exposing corruption in Belarus.

The plight of Barankov poses a real test of Ecuador’s commitment to human rights. A former Belarusian army captain, Barankov arrived in Quito in 2008 thanks to the Ecuadorian government’s very liberal immigration laws. He then set up a blog denouncing corruption and other crimes allegedly committed under authoritarian ruler Alexander Lukashenko. Ecuador initially granted him refugee status, but after a state visit by Lukashenko to Quito on June 29, he was arrested and is being held in the capital’s infamous, 19th century prison while the top court hears the case on Belarus’ fresh extradition request. If sent there, according to his partner, Maribel Andrade, he will face charges of treason and could be put to death.

Furthermore, the report in Time notes that Ecuador has a history of not respecting the basic privacy and human rights of its citizens and journalists:

Indeed, the hospitality that Ecuador extends to Assange is withheld from Ecuadorians who may try to emulate his online whistle-blowing tactics. Since Assange entered the embassy, Ecuador’s government has scrapped the need for a warrant to investigate private Internet Protocol addresses. Additionally, for the second time in 18 months, on July 31 government officials and police seized the computers of the newsmagazine Vanguardia, which has been critical of the Correa Administration. The charge: that the publication had violated labor laws. As a result, Vanguardia only managed to go to print this week with the help of donated computers.

Kinda makes you wonder if there are any reasonable governments out there.

Filed Under: barankov, ecuador, extradition, hypocrsiy, julian assange