Isn't this something that Assange should be releasing personally, anyway? Feels a little weird for him to have his org do his dirty work. An org that claims such objectivity.

Multiple news agencies have reported that the Ecuadorians cut off his Internet access in the spring of 2018, after unspecified or wildly speculated-upon "misbehavior" by Assange.

> Multiple news agencies have reported that the Ecuadorians cut off his Internet access in the spring of 2018, after unspecified or wildly speculated-upon "misbehavior" by Assange.

The misbehavior at issue was hosting members of the Catalan separatist movement and releasing messages endorsing it shortly after the declaration of independence, which prompted diplomatic protest from Spain to Ecuador.

And probably more relevant, after the election that removed Rafael Correa as the president.

He doesn't have a personal lawyer?

We can’t be very far from, “It is false and defamatory to suggest that the wizard of Oz is just a sad little man hiding behind a curtain.”

Perhaps they wrote this label with the intent of the document being published?

That's exactly what I was thinking as well. Nobody would have published this super interesting and long list, if it was like "wikileaks complaining about stuff".

> The ridiculous hypocrisy

they are legally required to do this because to make a public statement would be a violation of the gag order he is under.

It's an interesting theory, but I'm not sure if I believe it. Which gag order is this, and how does it apply to Wikileaks?

It is a gag order on Asssange: He is prohibited from "carrying out activities that could be considered political and interference in the internal affairs of other states, or that may cause harm to the good relations of Ecuador with any other state".

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/16/ecuadorian_embassy_... http://www.codigovidrio.com/code/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/...

Going through his lawyers and explicitly saying that this is a confidential legal document is a way to get press for his case while not technically violating the conditions.

Thanks for the links. I don't think it's fair to call a voluntary agreement in exchange for asylum a "gag order", and I don't think that Wikileaks as an organization would be subject to the agreement, but you are right: it doesn't seem impossible that this approach is an end-run around the agreement.

On the other hand, I'm doubtful that there is sufficient incentive for Assange to try such a workaround. My Spanish is weak, but it looks like the last few lines of the agreement say that it can be unilaterally modified by the Embassy at any time. This would seem to negate any advantage of adhering to the word but not the spirit of the agreement.

I thought the American people didn't care about transparency, suddenly using the crutch they rejected to beat the people who gave it to them gives them a sense of satisfaction they may be left blissfully ignorant. Not just assange, but snowden, and manning.