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

Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#771

Post by mejari »

dleslie wrote: post #760
mejari wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is incorrect on both counts. They promised releases several weeks in a row before they actually released anything. And they also released social security numbers, names and addresses for hundreds/thousands of people, so they're obviously not that concerned with protecting people. Hell, the put out the information on almost all women voters in Turkey, putting them in danger: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeynep-t…

> They promised releases several weeks in a row before they actually released anything. So they promised releases well in advance and then released them. > And they also released social security numbers, names and addresses for hundreds/thousands of people, so they're obviously not that concerned with protecting people. That wasn't Wikileaks, it was Michael Best. Did you read the update at the top of the article you…

>So they promised releases well in advance and then released them.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? They promised releases to occur each week, until eventually weeks later an actual leak came out.

>That wasn't Wikileaks, it was Michael Best. Did you read the update at the top of the article you linked?

Yes, did you? It shows that he passed the data to Wikileaks, who didn't do the protection of information you say they do, and just released the information. And then never took responsibility. I mean, look at their own responses to that tweet. They're denying that anything they did was even bad.

I notice you also completely ignored the part about them releasing the private information of DNC donors.

>Stop reading the Huffington Post; it's a rag.

Stop complaining about sources when you are getting basic facts incorrect.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#773

Post by linkregister »

awacs wrote: post #715
javajosh wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It saddens me greatly to hear this sentiment reflected here at Hacker News. To reject the entire institution of journalism is a radical position, and not justified by fact. Manipulating the timing of release is a common tool used by literally every public figure and institution. To characterize timing manipulation as collusion and to imply that it means no-one can be trusted is a critical mistake. Given my position,…

I concur with this view. I don't necessarily think the Wikileaks are not valid, but from my point of view, Wikileaks lost all credibility being 100% anti-Hillary, with zero anti-Trump information released. Somehow I don't think the RNC would have much different internal e-mails floating around at this point. That being said, I read the Goldman transcripts and other things that were supposed to be so damaging, and the…

I don't think it's entirely fair to blame this imbalance on Wikileaks; they may not have received any information derogatory to the Trump campaign.

Wikileaks' current agenda appears to be to disrupt Western governments through leaking damaging information. I don't see a clear preference for political parties; the Manning leaks were damaging to the Republican Bush administration.

I believe that the most probable source of the DNC leaks is Russian government units, but not for the purposes of election manipulation. Here is an article that most credibly posits this theory: https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russian-spycraft-how-kre....

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#774

Post by Merad »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #525
the_duke wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every politician has public and private positions. That's just how politics works. The view the plebs demands often don't align with either the politicians vision for the country, what's possible near or long term, or the people you are indebted to (donors, etc). In many cases it's acceptable and even advisable, in my opinion. A head of state has insight into facts and knowledge of others about realities and facts th…

> But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter. Status quo vs. something different. The status quo is that Obama/Hillary have destabilised countless countries, and are sabre rattling against Russia, possibly leading to an eventual nuclear war. By contrast, Trump is promising less wars, less interventionism, and otherwise is a relative wildcard with a penchant tow…

> I'm not American, but on paper, it looks like Trump would be an improvement as far as world stability goes, I'd vote for him based on his policy concerning Russia alone.

I'm struggling to comprehend how you can look at Trump's statements and come out thinking that he'll improve world stability. Trump thinks that NATO is obsolete - he's happy for the US to abandon it and totally change the balance of power in Europe. He has stated that nuclear proliferation is a good thing, even encouraging an Asian nuclear arms race between the DPRK and ROK/Japan. He's asked, "why can't [the US] use nuclear weapons?"

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#775

Post by tptacek »

kyledrake wrote: post #694
tptacek wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To believe that Assange is motivated by a vendetta against HRC, you not only have to conjure up a plausible motive for that vendetta despite Clinton's marginal role in any of the US's dealings with Wikileaks, but also rationalize his efforts to put into power someone who has promised to put Edward Snowden to death. No, not buying it.

This is a really good point. HRC isn't necessarily good for Wikileaks, but Trump would conceivably be a lot, lot worse. Perhaps the idea is that they might get off easier if Trump feels Wikileaks gave him an election present, but I find that to be a high risk gamble, especially at this point. That said, the argument could perhaps just as easily be made if they leaked a bunch of Trump stuff too. I don't think anyone c…

We're not required to unspool Assange's weird motives to acknowledge that he is essentially functioning as an arm of the Trump campaign, and must know that he's doing so.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#776

Post by ZoF »

acomjean wrote: post #741
xenadu02 wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read many of the emails. There just isn't much to them. It's almost all boring day-to-day crap. Even the release of Clinton's speech transcripts is about as mild and inoffensive as you can get. The other thing is we have no idea if they are all authentic. It would be trivial to slip a few extra sentences in here or there. Everyone just seems to take it as given that they're legit but Assange didn't hack anyone t…

>The other thing is we have no idea if they are all authentic. It would be trivial to slip a few extra sentences in here or there. This. There has been no verification that these are completely real emails (the checksum matches so to speak).

Yes, the DNC wouldn't have called them out as fake immediately if they were... Come on.

Podesta himself admitted he got hacked and the password he emailed himself in plaintext worked for his other social media accounts.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#777

Post by bduerst »

gaur wrote: post #240
willvarfar wrote: post #177

It suits Assange's narrative to say its a "state actor", just as it suited Yahoo's board to claim "state actors" as they disclosed their latest breach. Assange's ego really dilutes the wikileaks original goals and its no surprise that the actual doers in the organisation upped and left in 2010.

I had a neutral opinion of Assange until he posted (and then deleted) a tweet with echo parentheses. That made it pretty obvious he's not really in it for any noble purpose.

Same, but my moment of losing respect for him was when I found out he works for RT: https://www.rt.com/tags/the-julian-assange-show/

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#778

Post by gotchange »

pdx wrote: post #554
anthony_romeo wrote: post #237

We're in the middle of some crazy propaganda war right now, and it's been this way for quite a while. It became completely transparent when the Podesta e-mails were released mere minutes after Trump's videos regarding possible sexual assault were released. Ever since the DNC leaks and the subsequent accusations against Russia, it became clear to me that, at some point, the attempts to tarnish Wikileaks's name was to…

To further what you're saying. Wikileaks announced for weeks when they were releasing the emails. It was a pre-planned event that the entire world was waiting for. The Trump tape, which had obviously been saved for a rainy day, was trotted out to distract from the pre-announced Wikileaks release. This level of premeditated collusion with the media is not even up for debate at this point, since the very emails they ar…

This is not premeditated, this is October Surprise and they had the Trump video in store for that round of the fight, nothing sinister.

Regarding the media, all are culprits in biased news coverage whether those on the right like Breitbart or Fox News or on the left like NYT or Washington Post but this held belief that you should expect nothing less than 100% impartial coverage of the elections when they endorse their favorite candidate publicly is also a bit misplaced.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#779

Post by gaius »

grandalf wrote: post #730
linkregister wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT is the publication that originated the story about the HRC external email server during her tenure at the State Department. The NYT frequently publishes articles critical of Hillary Clinton. Here are several hundred: https://www.reddit.com/search?q=subreddit%3Athe_donald+site%... I'm using this example as an internet community that curates information critical to Hillary Clinton and Democratic Party campaigns…

Many of these are old and do not address the content of the emails. There are perhaps 100 significant stories that could have been written based on the information leaked in the past 10 days. We got zero. The paper has also declined to collaborate with Assange to release stories about many other leaks. The NYT is America's Pravda. By the establishment and for the establishment... the definition of conservative. To th…

The have sacrificed their place as "paper of record" by being so shamelessly partisan. The Times of London always stays above the fray.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#780

Post by dleslie »

mejari wrote: post #771
dleslie wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They promised releases several weeks in a row before they actually released anything. So they promised releases well in advance and then released them. > And they also released social security numbers, names and addresses for hundreds/thousands of people, so they're obviously not that concerned with protecting people. That wasn't Wikileaks, it was Michael Best. Did you read the update at the top of the article you…

>So they promised releases well in advance and then released them. Are you being intentionally obtuse? They promised releases to occur each week, until eventually weeks later an actual leak came out. >That wasn't Wikileaks, it was Michael Best. Did you read the update at the top of the article you linked? Yes, did you? It shows that he passed the data to Wikileaks, who didn't do the protection of information you say…

> It shows that he passed the data to Wikileaks, who didn't do the protection of information you say they do, and just released the information.

Wikileaks linked to the information; it was hosted on the Internet Archive, who took it down[0].

> And then never took responsibility.

It wasn't theirs to take down. The parties responsible took it down, responsibly.

> They're denying that anything they did was even bad.

They denied that members of the APK are an at-risk group.

> I notice you also completely ignored the part about them releasing the private information of DNC donors.

Because that's not the example you used. I wasn't aware you were refering to DNC donors with your accusation.

0: https://glomardisclosure.com/2016/07/26/the-who-and-how-of-t...

Post reply on HN