WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder • Hacker News Board

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#51

Post by DominikR » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 1:36 PM UTC

parfe wrote: post #20

leaveyou wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what was Seth Rich's job at DNC ? Technically, could he have leaked those emails ? How can we be sure Assange is dishonest when he implies Seth Rich was the source ? Is there solid proof that Rich was really the victim of a failed robbery and not revenge disguised as robbery ?

>"Whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks," Assange said. "As a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington." >When the interviewer interjected that the murder may have been a robbery, Assange pushed back. >"No," he said. "There’s no finding. So… I’m suggest…

Oh believe me he will leak the proof for it too. He will slowly destroy the Democrats by constantly leaking proof of their outright criminal conduct.

And Trump doesn't strike me as a man that will allow the Clintons to get away from this. He will definitely persecute them to the fullest extent after he has won the elections, he even said himself that he believes Hillary should go to prison.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#52

Post by bsbechtel » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 1:36 PM UTC

Clubber wrote: post #38

SmellTheGlove wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simpler than that. In the past, information was passed to trusted reporters because the media was trusted. A lot of what Wikileaks is reporting now is that the media is coordinating with the same people that these leaks are about in the first place. In other words, the media isn't trustworthy. So it's a choice, put it out whole, or take a real risk that it'll never see the light of day. You could argue that Wiki…

So why not run it through reporters and if they bury the story, then release it. Snowden ran his story through reporters and it certainly wasn't buried.

Because the DNC leaks implicated a lot of reporters who Wikileaks would have to work with to get this story out.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#53

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 1:36 PM UTC

brianlweiner wrote: post #46

patrickaljord wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it weird that all these critiques from liberals come just when Wikileaks released info that the DNC primaries were rigged. Before that, it was pretty much all praise. Now, it turns out one of their informant may have been the victim of political assassination and you focus on the fact that they released a conversation of a dad and his daughter, which is of course a blunder but still, compared to the other pote…

Were establishment Democrats particularly pro-wikileaks during the Manning releases? I don't recall that - in general both parties have been pretty much anti-whistleblower and pro-secrecy. If anything the Republicans (particularly pro-Trump factions) have been awfully hypocritical on this stance since they've previously called for various leakers (Snowden in particular) to return home and face the death penalty. They…

[deleted]

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#54

Post by Lawtonfogle » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 1:36 PM UTC

Clubber wrote: post #38

SmellTheGlove wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simpler than that. In the past, information was passed to trusted reporters because the media was trusted. A lot of what Wikileaks is reporting now is that the media is coordinating with the same people that these leaks are about in the first place. In other words, the media isn't trustworthy. So it's a choice, put it out whole, or take a real risk that it'll never see the light of day. You could argue that Wiki…

So why not run it through reporters and if they bury the story, then release it. Snowden ran his story through reporters and it certainly wasn't buried.

You don't give the enemy a heads up. The fact the media is now an enemy is a nightmare in and of itself.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#55

Post by jfaucett » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 1:37 PM UTC

zzalpha wrote: post #27

jfaucett wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

either all information is public or only those in the power elite circles, which control media and its mediums, will have access to all information. I would rather the power rest in the hands of a well informed many since this is an inherently more fault tolerant system than the orwellian future your assertions seem to imply.

Sounds great! Please post your complete medical and financial history here. Thanks!

Ok. Medical: chronic PVT, and pseudobraintumor due to tetracycline allergie. Financial History 40k per year from 2011-2015 , last year no income, master student CS. That sums it up, I should probably post the details on github soon, since that is the policy of the company im founding following buffer.io precedent.

It is my firm belief that openness and honesty is as important for societal progress as it is for the scientific sort. But I don't expect you to adopt my sentiment only to weigh the full context of the consequences.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#56

Post by SmellTheGlove » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 1:37 PM UTC

Clubber wrote: post #38

SmellTheGlove wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simpler than that. In the past, information was passed to trusted reporters because the media was trusted. A lot of what Wikileaks is reporting now is that the media is coordinating with the same people that these leaks are about in the first place. In other words, the media isn't trustworthy. So it's a choice, put it out whole, or take a real risk that it'll never see the light of day. You could argue that Wiki…

So why not run it through reporters and if they bury the story, then release it. Snowden ran his story through reporters and it certainly wasn't buried.

Think about it like a data project at a company (because that's my job, heh). There's this weird, but accurate, assumption that the first to report something is assumed true, and anything that comes later either has to conform to that or is presumed to be wildly inaccurate.

It's not so much the risk that the media buries it, I was incorrect in framing it that way. The bigger risk is that the media spins and reports it. Remember, they still have the majority of the eyes and ears.

Snowden did it, but note that it involved foreign media. It's probably easier to get foreign media involved in an international spying story than it would be to get someone to take up the US democratic primary and campaign finance laws (which everyone else in the world already thinks is ridiculous). I'm not saying it can't be done, or that it shouldn't be done or whatever else - but I do think it's a complex decision.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#57

Post by zzalpha » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 1:38 PM UTC

aljones wrote: post #34

ceejayoz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is, again, not evidence that anything got rigged . The RNC had a similar anti-Trump preference. There's similarly no evidence they rigged anything against him.

It is disappointing to see simple statements of facts down voted.

I wouldn't get too hung up on it. I've found, on HN, downvote abuse usually gets reversed over time.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#58

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 1:39 PM UTC

zzalpha wrote: post #41

SmellTheGlove wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simpler than that. In the past, information was passed to trusted reporters because the media was trusted. A lot of what Wikileaks is reporting now is that the media is coordinating with the same people that these leaks are about in the first place. In other words, the media isn't trustworthy. So it's a choice, put it out whole, or take a real risk that it'll never see the light of day. You could argue that Wiki…

A lot of what Wikileaks is reporting now is that the media is coordinating with the same people that these leaks are about in the first place. In other words, the media isn't trustworthy. It doesn't work like that. In the past WikiLeaks worked with the media on redaction. Its not like they just handed over the material and stepped away powerless. And they always had the fallback of posting unredacted materials if the…

[deleted]

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#59

Post by mtanski » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 1:40 PM UTC

brianlweiner wrote: post #46

patrickaljord wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it weird that all these critiques from liberals come just when Wikileaks released info that the DNC primaries were rigged. Before that, it was pretty much all praise. Now, it turns out one of their informant may have been the victim of political assassination and you focus on the fact that they released a conversation of a dad and his daughter, which is of course a blunder but still, compared to the other pote…

Were establishment Democrats particularly pro-wikileaks during the Manning releases? I don't recall that - in general both parties have been pretty much anti-whistleblower and pro-secrecy. If anything the Republicans (particularly pro-Trump factions) have been awfully hypocritical on this stance since they've previously called for various leakers (Snowden in particular) to return home and face the death penalty. They…

Assange has a personal vendetta against HRC because while Secretary of State she complicated his life. She wanted to find a way to indict/prosecute him and she made sure a lot of nations doors would be closed to him. Details on vendetta: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-...

I like the mission of wiki leaks; I think they should do some basic editing like not leaking names or ordinary citizens (or low level gov employees). But, I think Assange is terrible front man for the organization. I guess nobody else wants the job.

Re: WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer's murder

#60

Post by imron » Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 1:41 PM UTC

dvcc wrote: post #2

WikiLeaks is becoming a political mess with Assange leading the charge. The philosophy that all information should be public is just absurd. There is a reason that the whistle-blowers prior passed their information to reporters, it allowed for certain pieces of information to be redacted. Sending out the name of every woman voter in Turkey does not benefit anyone. Leaking the private conversation of a man and his dau…

> Sending out the name of every woman voter in Turkey does not benefit anyone

It was not wikileaks who did this. See here: https://glomardisclosure.com/2016/07/26/the-who-and-how-of-t...

Specifically from the summary at the end:

1. Because they tweeted the link to the item, they were blamed by the article. This provoked what seems in hindsight to be an overly defensive reaction. Given the accusations that Russia supplied WikiLeaks with information to publish and some construing this to mean that WikiLeaks is controlled by Russia, it’s easy to see how this could happen.

2. Even though my name was on the page as the uploader and I had tweeted it out first, WikiLeaks never tried to pass the buck to me or say that it was my upload or my fault. They never reached out to me privately to ask me to do or say anything about it, despite the fact that that would have made things easier for them or taken the pressure off of them. I can only conclude that this is because doing so would have violated the spirit, if not the letter, of their source protection policy by placing the blame on me or pointing the Turkish government in my direction. For that, I’m grateful.