Hacker News Reader

That's because there are no facts. We don't even know if the internet was cut in the first place. (One wonders how they managed to post to Twitter without internet access.) The "state actor" part is completely unsubstantiated.

The third option you've missed is "this is all bullshit." Either because it's not happening at all, or because the embassy's internet is down due to some routine outage.

It's possible to use Twitter via SMS: https://support.twitter.com/articles/14014

It would be pretty weird if SMS were available but not data.

No it wouldn't. SMS is actually a control message on the voice stream (my words might not be precise). You can send SMS with no data connectivity.

I meant in this particular case it would be weird, because it would mean that the perpetrators are somehow blocking mobile data but neglected to block SMS.

Right, and there are ways you can consider the validity of either method, but to block SMS would mean blocking voice.

Perhaps a temporary data hiccup might be a more realistic solution (or simulation, if malicious) versus "Call cannot be connected".

I think a state actor could filter at will, since they could MITM the connection and pass stuff through selectively. Not that I can see why they would bother. Although I can't see why they would take this action at all, which is why I don't believe the story in the first place.

Pretty much, agreed.

"(One wonders how they managed to post to Twitter without internet access.)"

I don't think Assange runs the wikileaks twitter account. So probably he messages them every day and when they don't get a message they know something is wrong.

> "State actor" can only really mean UK or Ecuadorian government - or at the very least one of those two must be pulling the trigger.

Not necessarily. Russia could think that it's best interest is that Wikileaks' dead man switch goes off. They could be pressuring Ecuador or actually have cut the connection themselves.

> Also, this is central London - the internet floats freely through the air. Contingency measure is tethering?

Cellphone signals can be easily jammed, as shown at DEFCON and other events. No one has reported on whether or not they can get signal at the Ecuadorian embassy AFAIK.

EDIT: Some people streamed Periscope from the embassy, so no cellphone jamming. If Ecuador is involved, of course, they could just take away all of Assange's devices.

Right, but if Russia is cutting it off that will be a snip the cable type job, killing internet for the whole embassy (or even building). Something you'd expect to be noticed pretty widely. And it would be fixable by phoning BT.

As for signal jamming. Not an area I know a lot about, but I assume it is achieved by flooding an area with noise. Pretty detectable is what I'm saying - anyone nipped down to see if that's actually happening? Would be quite a scoop.

The periscopers who did stream from the embassy today did report jamming very close to the embassy. And were not let through to Julian.

Another possibility: For whatever reason, JA exclusively uses GSM for access (independent of whatever connection the embassy uses) and this was cut off at the behest of some state actor.

In any case, this is all speculation until we get some kind of evidence of some kind.

If recreations of Julian Assange's room in the embassy (from memory; photographs are not allowed due to embassy rules) are correct, then Assange uses a wireless router just like the rest of us.