Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 167 posts

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#111

Post by jrockway »

tombrossman wrote: post #98
colordrops wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone care to elaborate why I'm being downvoted?

I didn't downvote you but if you read the comments guidelines[0] they are helpful and cover some of the comments you made above. As an aside, your profile says you signed up 1337 days ago and your karma is at 1358. Another 21 down-votes and your Hacker News profile page will looking pretty leet - I say go for it. Remember, it's just fake internet points, you can't spend them or do anything interesting with them. [0]…

On Reddit you can actually sell your Internet Points. Apparently spammers like to get high-karma accounts for spamming purposes.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#112

Post by emmelaich »

colordrops wrote: post #82
MichaelGG wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation? Nothing there says Google worked with the government. In fact, the article has Google saying the opposite. The slides just say "direct access" with no clarification. Can you point me to exactly what you're reading that indicates Google worked with the NSA ?

You're joking right? This was national news when this was revealed. You obviously didn't read the link: "The PRISM program collects stored internet communications based on demands made to internet companies such as Google Inc. under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to turn over any data that match court-approved search terms."

Obeying the law is not "working with"

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#113

Post by kushti »

mamon wrote: post #105
nl wrote: post #47

The biggest downside to the NSA revelations is how quickly people accept conspiracy theories. Wikileaks just released a big email dump. People looked at it with Google Chrome, and it detected malware in the archive. That blacklisted the site it was downloaded from. There is no big "Google is protecting the Democrats and hates Wikileaks". Wikileaks was serving malware, and Google detected it.

Wikileaks itself is no angel. Have you ever wondered how they get the information they publish? The simple and most probable answer is: Julian Assagne is a Russian agent, working with GRU. That's also the reason why he helped Snowden get assylium in Russia after the whole NSA surveilance thing.

Any proofs you can provide links to?

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#116

Post by wwwdonohue »

nl wrote: post #83
colordrops wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DNC Leaked emails are not interesting, but a plagiarized paragraph by Trump's wife is interesting? Are you saying that politicians and political parties do not wield power and influence and do nothing to influence the media? The main purpose of politics is to wield power and influence, and the media is core to this. Are you saying that media is unbiased despite the fact that they are on record contributing to particu…

Edit: I'm being downvoted pretty heavily on this, but I'm not entirely sure why. I didn't even mention Trump's wife. DNC Leaked emails are not interesting, but a plagiarized paragraph by Trump's wife is interesting? Hu? The DNC email leaks are much more interesting than the plagiarized paragraph in Melania Trump. Neither are particularly interesting in the scheme of things though. The plagiarized paragraph shows that…

The DNC emails show that the DNC actively nurtured relationships with reporters that went against the basics of journalistic ethics. They show that the DNC coordinated with the Hillary campaign to come up with good anti-Bernie stunts (planting an audience member to, i.e., ask if he believed in God). They show a consistent and far-reaching effort not just to "favor" Hillary, as you say, but to ensure that she would win -- whether by bullying the press, planning "counter" events, or propagating narratives about the Sanders campaign being weak and disorganized.

This is in direct violation of the DNC charter:

In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.

This is far more interesting than Munich or Tim Kaine.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#117

Post by mamon »

kushti wrote: post #113
mamon wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikileaks itself is no angel. Have you ever wondered how they get the information they publish? The simple and most probable answer is: Julian Assagne is a Russian agent, working with GRU. That's also the reason why he helped Snowden get assylium in Russia after the whole NSA surveilance thing.

Any proofs you can provide links to?

I based my claims mostly on this:

https://20committee.com/2015/08/31/wikileaks-is-a-front-for-...

https://20committee.com/2013/07/06/wikileaks-snowden-and-the...

As a former counteritelligence officer this guy seems to know what he's talking about. Unless of course he has his own agenda, but the facts presented are verifiable and pretty convincing.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#118

Post by artichokeheart »

nl wrote: post #47

The biggest downside to the NSA revelations is how quickly people accept conspiracy theories. Wikileaks just released a big email dump. People looked at it with Google Chrome, and it detected malware in the archive. That blacklisted the site it was downloaded from. There is no big "Google is protecting the Democrats and hates Wikileaks". Wikileaks was serving malware, and Google detected it.

Got any links to the malware? Or are you just employing a classic subversion tactic

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#119

Post by appleflaxen »

mamon wrote: post #105
nl wrote: post #47

The biggest downside to the NSA revelations is how quickly people accept conspiracy theories. Wikileaks just released a big email dump. People looked at it with Google Chrome, and it detected malware in the archive. That blacklisted the site it was downloaded from. There is no big "Google is protecting the Democrats and hates Wikileaks". Wikileaks was serving malware, and Google detected it.

Wikileaks itself is no angel. Have you ever wondered how they get the information they publish? The simple and most probable answer is: Julian Assagne is a Russian agent, working with GRU. That's also the reason why he helped Snowden get assylium in Russia after the whole NSA surveilance thing.

All you have are allegations.

All Assange has is evidence (in the form of leaked documents)

Even if he were a proven state agent, I am happy to have information about how my representatives are working against my interests in a systematic way.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#120

Post by Canada »

gkoberger wrote: post #49
nl wrote: post #47

The biggest downside to the NSA revelations is how quickly people accept conspiracy theories. Wikileaks just released a big email dump. People looked at it with Google Chrome, and it detected malware in the archive. That blacklisted the site it was downloaded from. There is no big "Google is protecting the Democrats and hates Wikileaks". Wikileaks was serving malware, and Google detected it.

Really? The takeaway I got from the NSA revelations was that it's now completely reasonable to assume that Google/FB/Twitter/etc are working directly with the government or politicians. Twitter removed #DNCLeaks right while it was the top trending topic today. Reddit paid staff has been suspending people who talk about Correct The Record or the DNC leaks. Facebook admitted to filtering certain topics due to political…

Any raw dump of email that includes publicly available mailboxes will contain malware. Lots of it. If you download the whole archive on a system running anti-virus it will be detected. The virus scanner would complain just the same if fed the GOP's emails.

Why would any virus scanner not raise the alarm? How would it determine that this time the malware should get a pass because of the political nature of nearby data? The mailbox could contain the cure for cancer, the AV will still behave the same. The virus scanner isn't making a mistake. Wikileaks made the mistake by not scrubbing the irrelevant malware from the archive before posting it.

Post reply on HN