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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by Roritharr »

hulahoof wrote: post #868
FireBeyond wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that any intelligence community that couldn't digest 500GB in full text / keyword searching (keywords that are likely already configured/known) between now and the election would be a pretty sad intelligence community. Apropos of the keyword list, dissecting the corpus could be done in a few hours with a promo-code worth of AWS time.

I think "Public Intelligence Capacity" was referring to the ability for use regular members of society to find and verify meaningful information from the leaks.

Yes, i thought more of "people on 4chan" than actually any Intelligence Service of any nation state. I'm pretty sure they are mining it, but there would be political fallout from publishing their findings.

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

#972

Post by forgetsusername »

gotchange wrote: post #704
forgetsusername wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trump is the Republican nominee for the 2016 US presidential elections which means that he's as much a politician as as Hillary or Obama is I hope you're kidding when you say he's as much a politician as Hilary. He has very limited political experience. She's been doing it for 30+ years. He's a candidate, but has held precisely zero public offices thus far. > this notion that since he's novice in this field he dese…

I am the one here who's advocating for equal and fair treatment for both candidates not the usual prevailing one for Hillary and a more lenient and almost non-existent for Trump because he's a newbie to the world of politics. This is not a game. This is a real and serious national election for a superpower, and this levity when dealing with these matters is not helpful. Your position seems to be along those lines abo…

>usual prevailing one for Hillary and a more lenient and almost non-existent for Trump

Unless your single source of news is the Trump sub-reddit, most of the mainstream media does nothing but rip Trump.

>This is a real and serious national election for a superpower, and this levity when dealing with these matters is not helpful.

Don't lecture me, my country isn't having this issue. You put a bizarre TV personality up for president, not me. Citizens get the government they deserve.

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

#973

Post by forgetsusername »

shard972 wrote: post #938
forgetsusername wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trump is the Republican nominee for the 2016 US presidential elections which means that he's as much a politician as as Hillary or Obama is I hope you're kidding when you say he's as much a politician as Hilary. He has very limited political experience. She's been doing it for 30+ years. He's a candidate, but has held precisely zero public offices thus far. > this notion that since he's novice in this field he dese…

> He's a candidate, but has held precisely zero public offices thus far. I'm not sure why that's a bad thing?

>I'm not sure why that's a bad thing?

Not saying it is.

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

#974

Post by forgetsusername »

vacri wrote: post #798
forgetsusername wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trump is the Republican nominee for the 2016 US presidential elections which means that he's as much a politician as as Hillary or Obama is I hope you're kidding when you say he's as much a politician as Hilary. He has very limited political experience. She's been doing it for 30+ years. He's a candidate, but has held precisely zero public offices thus far. > this notion that since he's novice in this field he dese…

To suggest that Trump has 'very limited' political experience when he's been rubbing shoulders with the country's political elites for a few decades is simply disingenuous. > Who said anything about "forgiving" him? ... I expect more from my politicians. gotchange's point is that some people give Trump a lower bar of expectations because he's an 'outsider' or 'new at this' - that difference in expectations is forgivi…

>To suggest that Trump has 'very limited' political experience when he's been rubbing shoulders with the country's political elites for a few decades is simply disingenuous.

To argue that he's remotely as experienced as Hilary Clinton is simply disingenuous.

>gotchange's whole point is about expecting more from politicians, and asking why the expectations are lowered on the Trump side.

gotchange's whole point was that somehow, something (not sure what) is biased against Hilary here. Trump is being skewered about this on every channel, on every website. What more do you want? This is a massive scandal, and I'm sure there's more to come.

>gotchange's point is that some people give Trump a lower bar of expectations because he's an 'outsider' or 'new at this'

No, my expectations are lower for Trump because he has a history of being a buffoon. But you do realize there's a difference between "expectation" and "acceptance"?

For what it's worth, I think they are both terrible candidates. I have no idea how Trump got this far, but I don't think there's another candidate that Hilary could have possibly beat.

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

#975

Post by johnmarius »

mikeash wrote: post #249
PJDK wrote: post #235

I'm a bit confused by all the comments here spinning off down conspiracy theories, but not much on facts. "State actor" can only really mean UK or Ecuadorian government - or at the very least one of those two must be pulling the trigger. If it's Ecuador that makes some sense, they control the connections to the outside world - they could just change some passwords and internet is cut. But that would be very obviously…

That's because there are no facts. We don't even know if the internet was cut in the first place. (One wonders how they managed to post to Twitter without internet access.) The "state actor" part is completely unsubstantiated. The third option you've missed is "this is all bullshit." Either because it's not happening at all, or because the embassy's internet is down due to some routine outage.

"(One wonders how they managed to post to Twitter without internet access.)"

I don't think Assange runs the wikileaks twitter account. So probably he messages them every day and when they don't get a message they know something is wrong.

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

#976

Post by acdha »

ZoF wrote: post #961
acdha wrote: post #910

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about that a little more in depth: For any one email, it's easy to check and dispute a discrepancy. Checking thousands of emails takes time but you have to take that time to avoid the chance of validating a forgery. During that time, they're in the news a lot and someone may confirm a legitimate email in the dump, which will be taken by many as proof that the entire thing is valid. Many people will never change…

Your implication is that I haven't thought about it in depth. I have. I care a lot, about my community, the country and our world. Wikileaks has a 100% accuracy rating(meaning they have not once pushed a falsified leak). You showing other falsifications by other corrupt organizations isn't enough for me to throw away evidence as 'false' when there is no reason to do so. Again, if there was an individual falsification…

Just to start with, remember when Wikileaks doxed millions of ordinary Turkish citizens falsely claiming they were secret documents about the ruling party?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeynep-tufekci/wikileaks-erdog...

Whatever you may believe about their actions in the past, they don't appear to be checking before publishing much now and that means it's on the reader to look for confirmation rather than credulously assuming nobody would lie about matters of political importance.

In this case, we've already seen that cycle with the Guccifer documents being heavily cross-promoted by Russian state media and Wikileaks but showing many signs of modification and misrepresentation (e.g. the alleged Clinton Foundation documents which didn't hold up to non-casual examination).

That doesn't mean that Wikileaks might not have real data but it definitely shows that anyone who isn't just looking for propaganda should take time to investigate rather than assuming they're legitimate or correctly summarized.

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

#977

Post by camiller »

snowwrestler wrote: post #818
camiller wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but wasn't the NYT shown to be colluding with the DNC to stack the deck against Sanders in the emails wikileaks published from the DNC hack? https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-berni...

No. EDIT: for context, if you go read the actual emails, what you see are totally bog-standard comments of a PR team reacting to a story once it posted, and again when the NYT updated it, as the NYT (and other papers) often do.

Yes, but they updated it in a fashion to downplay potential misuse of the JVF in Clinton's favor.

Edit: for context "We were able to keep him from including more on the JVF, it has a mention in there, but between us and a conversation he had with Marc Elias he finally backed off from focusing too much on that."

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

#978

Post by snowwrestler »

camiller wrote: post #977
snowwrestler wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. EDIT: for context, if you go read the actual emails, what you see are totally bog-standard comments of a PR team reacting to a story once it posted, and again when the NYT updated it, as the NYT (and other papers) often do.

Yes, but they updated it in a fashion to downplay potential misuse of the JVF in Clinton's favor. Edit: for context "We were able to keep him from including more on the JVF, it has a mention in there, but between us and a conversation he had with Marc Elias he finally backed off from focusing too much on that."

That was in the initial version of the story. As DWS says right in the email, the update added comments from Longabaugh.

This email chain is a total non-story. The NYTimes called the DNC for comment, and the DNC attempted to shape the story. That is basic PR 101.

We know the Sanders campaign did the same thing, because the story includes confidential information from his campaign, and comments from his surrogates. We just don't have Wikileaks access to the emails from his campaign (thank goodness).

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

#979

Post by lyschoening »

alva wrote: post #117
lyschoening wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

U.S. intelligence services and the Obama administration have explicitly accused Russia of the leaks and assessed that this must have been orchestrated from high in the Russian government. That's a pretty bold statement in politics. Of course we can point to cases where U.S. administrations have lied, but it still should count as evidence, at least on a probabilistic level. Also, regarding Assange, I believe evgen mea…

>U.S. intelligence services and the Obama administration have explicitly accused Russia of the leaks No they have not. Read the statement [0] very, very carefully. [0] https://www.dhs.gov/node/23199

> "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations."

> "We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

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

#980

Post by drzaiusapelord »

EdHominem wrote: post #218
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assange has a lot more enemies than the ones you choose to believe. Considering the Panama Papers were pretty much a long expose of Russian and Middle-East corruption, much moreso than the West, I suspect a lot of angry autocrats and dictators would like a piece of him too and they're not shy about war crimes or assassinating journalists. The leaks he's released target dozens of nations. He has a lot of enemies: http…

Yeah, because killing Assange would re-hide the documents. Brilliant. I'm sure they wouldn't shed any tears but it's unlikely they'll try to draw more attention to themselves. There's really only one group large enough to do what they want, damn the consequences.

Wikileaks claims it was Ecuador. So again, the CIA bogeyman that gets you knee-jerk upvotes from edgy teens on HN and Reddit is proven to be false.
Post reply on HN