PetaPixel

Parcel Camera Captures Photos of Julian Assange’s Life in Hiding

juliancardboard

Since June 19th of last year, political activist and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been living inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Although Ecuador has granted him political asylum, if he steps foot outside the embassy, he could be arrested, extradited to the United States, and tried for his role in leaking sensitive US diplomatic cables.

For most photographers, shooting a portrait of Assange while he’s in hiding isn’t the easiest thing to do. However, art collective !Mediengruppe Bitnik recently came up with a clever way of doing so: they sent him an Internet-connected camera that’s baked into a cardboard parcel.

Here’s what the outside and inside of the parcel camera look like:

julianassange-6

julianassange-7

The box, which was shipped to Assange via Royal Mail, is equipped with a pinhole “lens” and contains a camera that automatically snaps a photograph every 10 seconds. The image is then automatically posted to the web on a website titled “DELIVERY FOR MR. ASSANGE” (archived version available here if the main page ever goes down).

The camera arrived in Assange’s hands sometime in the past day. Here are some of the first photographs captured and published by the cam:

julianassange-5

julianassange-4

julianassange-3

julianassange-2

julianassange-1

In addition to some basic greetings, Assange also used the camera to make various (and often political political) statements:

julianassange-8

During the live “performance,” updates on the images were published occasionally to the art collective’s Twitter account.

The project appears to have ended already, but the images are archived on the project’s website. It’d be interesting to see this same concept used to capture images of other difficult-to-access subjects.

Deliver for Mr. Assange (via Technabob)


 
Get the hottest photo stories delivered to your inbox.
Get a daily digest of the latest headlines:
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003029681024 Josef Pozarski

    holed.;)

  • http://www.facebook.com/myles.cummings.1 Myles Cummings

    A case of wikipeeks?

  • Ketan

    Brilliant!

  • Samcornwell

    Andy Warhol reincarnate.

  • Publisher

    “Political Activist and Wikileaks founder”…
    don’t forget ‘Rapist’

  • Steve

    It’s a shame he wont go to Sweden to face the sexual assult charges. I’ve lost all respect for him. Never understood why he would be more likely to be deported from Sweden to the US than the UK? He should walk out of the Equadorian embasy and try to clear his name.

  • Eric

    I don’t get it. Are there no cameras or internet access in the embassy? What was the point of the “hidden” camera in a box? He obviously knew it was there, so it didn’t need to be hidden.

  • thing one and thing two

    don’t forget ‘alleged’

  • Marc Lipovsky

    Cellular data for one. And it had to be hidden to even get to him. It didn’t need to be hidden from him. Plan worked really well.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jan.kivisaar Jan Kivisaar

    “Although Ecuador has granted him political asylum, if he steps foot outside the embassy, he could be arrested, extradited to the United States, and tried for his role in leaking sensitive US diplomatic cables.”

    The extradition to the US bit is mostly Assange’s own (groundless) fear. The UK has been clear that it is Sweden that Assange will be extradited to – and Sweden has no right sending him further to the US. This is just him trying to stay in the spotlight (and further avoiding due process in Sweden), and now PetaPixel has spread his propaganda even more.

  • Eric

    I see. It would be nice if there was more explanation on why this was necessary. Is he not allowed to use the internet in the embassy? Is he not allowed to use a cell phone?

  • pryere

    Delivery. It’s just a box with some wires.

  • lidocaineus

    It still doesn’t make sense. As Eric says, why not just send a camera? He could post the camera back after he was done. Why not send a webcam? Why even do that or why send a cell phone? Surely the embassy has internet connections. This is weird, at least the way it’s been reported.

  • harumph

    Actually, that’s not true. Sweden has a bilateral agreement with the US that would allow them to extradite Assange. Sweden’s extradition treaty with the US only prohibits political and military extraditions. US charges would have to avoid being overtly political (even though they obviously are).

    Amnesty International maintains a list of cases where Sweden ignored this treaty in the past, and Swedish officials have repeatedly refused to deny that they would extradite Assange if given the chance. Regardless of how you feel about Assange, would it be a risk you’d be willing to take? Do you really think he’s holed up in the embassy to keep himself in the spotlight?

  • Coyote

    And of course embassy’s don’t xray inbound mail.. Who cares about him anyway..

  • Omniogignes

    Now that is revolutionary. For almost two years the centre of the reason for
    Assange not going to Sweden was one case involving to Egyptian-Swedes sent to Egypt. Now, it is evolved into “Amnesty International maintains a list of cases where Sweden ignored this treaty.”

    Sorry, but no matter what some want to believe the UK has to approve any extradition to a third country. This includes any “temporary” surrender.

    Risk? Assange is accused of hurting two individuals and is using his groundless fear to answer those accusations. He is “holed up in the embassy” to avoid facing his accusers in court. However, he does openly seek the spotlight.

  • Omniogignes

    don’t forget “scared of two women.”

  • harumph

    The UK has no reason to protect Assange. Of course they would approve the extradition. Additionally, to quote Glenn Greenwald, “Assange’s lawyers, along with Ecuadorean officials, have repeatedly told Sweden and Britain that Assange would immediately travel to Stockholm to face these allegations if some type of satisfactory assurance against extradition to the US could be given. This is the paramount issue because it shows that it is not Assange and Ecuadorean officials – but rather the Swedish and British governments – who are preventing the sex assault allegations from being fairly and legally resolved as they should be.”

    And your characterization of the sex assault allegations as “hurting two individuals” is misleading at best. Neither accuser reported any injuries, and they both admitted to having consensual sex with Assange. The reason they both went to the police was to force Assange to undergo an std test. The first accuser claims Assange purposefully ripped his condom, and the second accuser claims that the last time she had sex with Assange, he woke her by entering her without a condom. Neither has accused him of rape, and there have been no official charges filed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jan.kivisaar Jan Kivisaar

    If the UK has no reason to protect Assange, why does he trust the UK? If he was ever afraid of being extradited to the US, why even travel to one of the best and nearest friends of the US?

    The UK has previously had no problems wanting to extradite one of it’s own citizens (Gary McKinnon) to the US, only stopping it because they feared he would take his own life.

    If this is indeed a plot from the US government to get him to US soil, it is the worst attempt ever.

  • harumph

    I don’t know what you mean about trusting the UK. He wasn’t afraid of being extradited at that point. He was already in Britain when he learned that Swedish police wanted him for questioning. This was just a few months after Bradley Manning was first arrested. So Assange went to the London police to settle the matter, and they arrested him and put him in Wandsworth. He was released on bail with a tracking bracelet and told not to leave. Assange and his lawyers proceded in a months long legal challenge against the extradition orders, and they lost. The UK says they will uphold the warrant to extradite him to Sweden. And that’s where we’re at now.

  • Omniogignes

    Is Glenn Greenwald will to reference what was argued in court; by both Assange’s lawyers and the representatives of the Swedish prosecutor? The is obvious the answer is no.

    Quote: “he woke her by entering her without a condom.” Sorry, but that is rape in Sweden, the UK, Australia and many other modern countries, irrelevant if the alleged victim does not resist. Consent can not be obtained from a sleeping person is the law.

    Julian Assange was in court during his extradition hearings and knows the four accusations against him. None of accusations indicating consent was present.

    The police are interested in various things when a person inquires about STD test. The most serious is how it came that unprotected sex occurred. If the women indicate they wanted to use a condom, then the police will instigate a criminal investigation.

    Finally, Assange can not be extradited from Sweden for political crimes or without explicit permission from courts in the UK.

  • harumph

    Assange hasn’t been charged with rape. Your comments indicate that you’d rather form your own baseless speculations instead of simply seeking out the actual facts.

    And yes, of course Greenwald has referenced the testimonies. He’s written about Assange’s situation at great length for both the Guardian and Salon.com.

    Your final comment has already been addressed.

  • Omniogignes

    At no point was the claim made that Assange is charged. He is accused of four crimes, and will be formally charged after been extradited to Sweden.

    All three court ruling in the UK are publicly available. They outline what the four accusations against Assange are, and answers several questions.

    Additionally, the statute that outlines sexual assault in the UK is also available. This is the same for the US, Canada, Australia, and many other countries.

    There seems to be a suggestion that Greenwald should have represented Assange in the UK instead of Assange’s legal time, as he has some important information that Assange’s lawyers did not use.

  • Omniogignes

    Assange was in Sweden when the second interview was tentatively arrange, and left Sweden one day before that interview. That error might have been the fault of his Swedish lawyers, but does not look good on Assange.

  • harumph

    You used the word rape. You judged that his alleged crimes constituted rape. The Swedish Chief Public Prosecutor stated, “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” Karin Rosander, from the Swedish Prosecution Authority, said Assange remained suspected of molestation. My point was that you are judging him guilty of a crime that nobody is actually accusing him of.

    I don’t know what point you’re trying to make about Greenwald.

  • Omniogignes

    Yes, rape is an act of intercourse which lack consent, as defined under law. The definition does vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the basis is penetration where consent is absent. One situation where consent is absent is when an individual is asleep.

    One of the acts that Assange is accused of is rape. She might have been awake and had consented, which would mean rape did not occur.

    “he woke her by entering her” is rape.
    “he woke her then entered her” might not be rape.

  • harumph

    Your personal opinion doesn’t supercede the legal opinion. Your opinion of what Assange may or may not have done is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

  • Julian

    Haha a box from the swiss post

  • Omniogignes

    There seems to be a misunderstanding. The discussion is whether on not what Julian Assange is accused of is a crime.

    Three courts, one in Sweden and two in the UK have deemed that what Julian Assange is accused of a crime. The courts in the UK have deemed that Assange is wanted for prosecution.

    It is laws on sexual assault that define what acts are not consensual and what is sexual assault.

    That is the legal facts not a “personal” opinion, as it is based on the law.

  • harumph

    You’re moving the goalposts. First you misleadingly claimed that Assange was accused of “hurting two individuals,” and mockingly added that he was “scared of two women.” When it was pointed out to you that no injuries were reported by either woman, you pivoted to the claim that he had–by your interpretation of the law–committed rape. And now that it’s been pointed out to you that the Swedish prosecutors have gone on record as saying that there’s no reason to believe that Assange committed rape, you’re changing the debate to whether or not Assange has committed a crime.

    To that, I can only say once again that personal opinions on that matter are entirely irrelevant.

  • watching

    google “omniogignes” and you will come across a very interesting wordpress post regarding this individual

  • Omniogignes

    Again you seem to be misunderstanding. There seems to be a belief that accepting the accusation means that Assange is guilty of crimes. That is not the case.

    It is well known that a second Swedish prosecutor decided that evidence was insufficient to suggest that sexual assault (instigating intercourse on a sleeping person) occurred. However, that was only accusation of the four that was dropped while the investigation continued.

    This differs from the initial prosecutor believed that one complains constituted sexual assault (instigating intercourse on a sleeping person).

    The third prosecutor issue the arrest warrant with the most serious accusation including the three lesser accusations. This arrest warrant’s validity was subsequently argued in a Swedish court.

    It was based on that arrest warrant that Assange’s extradition to Sweden was approved, after three different hearings in UK courts.

    In the arrest warrant are accusations that clearly indicated that assault and injury were reported.

    Assange needs to face his accusers and defend himself.

  • Pre Alin

    if this is not fake, show us some pictures from inside the mail delivery buildings