Live data from Hacker News

Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

nytimes.com

71–80 of 182 posts

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#71
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, they have a better track record than most media outlets. They don't trust the information at face value until, according to them at least, it has been verified. What that verification process is I have no idea, but so far it does appear to be working. I might just be out of the loop, though, so if that is the case what misinformation have they spread?

I've never heard of them verifying the information. They said they didn't even know where it came from. I doubt the DNC helped verify the emails. > what misinformation have they spread? Russian intelligence provided them with the data. I think we can assume it wasn't the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. EDIT: You are correct that I can't prove that it's misinformation. However, that is a normal part…

Uh, the emails were verified as unaltered via DKIM signatures. Once Wikileaks did this all the talk of doctoring vanished, but you appear not to have realized this.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#72

Trump has been a public figure for far, far too long for there not to be 'EMAILS' equivalents. The fact that a large fraction of the time when wikileaks is discussed there is no visible questioning about why they haven't released about Trump tells me that something fucked up is going on. See this for an excellent summary [0]. 0. https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5c8u9l/we_are_the_wiki...

Trump has said himself that he does not use email. Wikileaks has released lots of negative information on various Republican candidates, as well (see their Iraq collection involving Bush), and have no bias toward any political entity. That's the entire point of their existence.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#73

Trump has been a public figure for far, far too long for there not to be 'EMAILS' equivalents. The fact that a large fraction of the time when wikileaks is discussed there is no visible questioning about why they haven't released about Trump tells me that something fucked up is going on. See this for an excellent summary [0]. 0. https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5c8u9l/we_are_the_wiki...

That's a pretty embarrassing, angry rant. Do you really doubt that Wikileaks would have released information about Trump if any had been leaked that was significant?

Check the 7th bullet point in the link.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would have happened to Hillary's emails if WikiLeaks would not have existed? Russia (probably?) still would have released them. WikiLeaks is merely a tool for entities wishing to release secret information and documents. Personally, I prefer WikiLeaks to be indiscriminate towards the secret documents they are entrusted with. If they weren't, another service would probably pop up doing exactly that.

> What would have happened to Hillary's emails if WikiLeaks would not have existed? You mean the alleged (never verified) DNC emails. Hillary's emails were released by the FBI and in response to a lawsuit.

Many of the emails were proven authentic via DKIM signatures.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if this is the same group of emails you talked about, but at the very least they admitted to a conspiracy to try to incite a "revolution" within the Catholic Church using pseudo-Catholic lay organizations with morally progressive agendas. That doesn't seem like a small thing.

That is not true; it's a wild exaggeration, part of the misinformation campaign. Whatever we may think politically, we all can agree that we don't need more of that!

Its a very serious intrusion that was denounced by the by American Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz and others.

The front organisations are real and the intent of starting a 'Catholic Spring' was descussed by Podesta and other high ranking DNC officials.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#76

"Some have accused us of being pawns of the Russian government, but this misrepresents our principles and basic operations. ...We prefer not to know who our sources are; we do not want to.." So they prefer to be unwitting pawns? Transparency is great, freedom of information is great, but is there some point at which you have to step back and acknowledge that you're being used by a foreign power? Doesn't that undermin…

I believe strongly in transparency as a way to prevent corruption, but spreading misinformation doesn't stop corruption, it furthers it. It doesn't 'shine a light', it creates shadows where a brutal dictator can hide while he hurts others. Look up "useful idiots" to understand the role they played. It's too easy to cite principle such as "transparency" in order to ignore the difficult questions of responsibility and…

Wikileaks are not "spreading misinformation", they verify everything that they get before they leak it. This is why people take what they leak so seriously - any jackass with an internet connection can spread information, but wikileaks has a reputation for thouroughly vetting the information they recieve.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#77

"Some have accused us of being pawns of the Russian government, but this misrepresents our principles and basic operations. ...We prefer not to know who our sources are; we do not want to.." So they prefer to be unwitting pawns? Transparency is great, freedom of information is great, but is there some point at which you have to step back and acknowledge that you're being used by a foreign power? Doesn't that undermin…

I believe strongly in transparency as a way to prevent corruption, but spreading misinformation doesn't stop corruption, it furthers it. It doesn't 'shine a light', it creates shadows where a brutal dictator can hide while he hurts others. Look up "useful idiots" to understand the role they played. It's too easy to cite principle such as "transparency" in order to ignore the difficult questions of responsibility and…

Wikileaks does not want to have editorial control over what they see as relevant or important, and what they see as irrelevant.

This is good because journalists are the ones that should be responsible for "verify[ing] and corroborat[ing] information" before presenting it to the public. You can go to many different news sites and see many different editorial perspectives on what of the Wikileaks leaks are important. This way the consumer of information can avoid the inherent weakness that only one editorial perspective would provide.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#78
post #24

Wikileaks has released some important things, but they should be embarrassed that they thought the personal emails of Hillary's campaign staff saying sometimes silly things to each other was at all newsworthy. It was sensational, sure, but it revealed nothing important or even interesting. Anyone who spends a moment considering the question would expect campaign operatives to gripe about their opponents in over the t…

There was plenty of relevant info in those leaks, such as Obama's 2008 cabinet being chosen by a Citibank executive https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-r...

I mean, I guess, but (a) it's old news and (b) you could call him a Citibank executive, or you could call him the Chief of Staff in Bill Clinton's Treasury Department.

That article mentions Froman's October 6, 2008 email.

Here's an October 27, 2008 CBS story that talks about the role Froman was playing in the transition: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/whos-really-backing-barack-obama...

Here's the Treasury Department's announcement of the staff change, including Froman as Chief of Staff: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDIR-1997-06-04/pdf/CDIR-1997-...

I guess the new news is that we see a bit of how the sausage is made, but my assumption was always that the inner circle of advisors has a lot of clout in deciding who staffs the positions. I don't really see this email as damning one way or the other--what am I missing?

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#79

"Some have accused us of being pawns of the Russian government, but this misrepresents our principles and basic operations. ...We prefer not to know who our sources are; we do not want to.." So they prefer to be unwitting pawns? Transparency is great, freedom of information is great, but is there some point at which you have to step back and acknowledge that you're being used by a foreign power? Doesn't that undermin…

I believe strongly in transparency as a way to prevent corruption, but spreading misinformation doesn't stop corruption, it furthers it. It doesn't 'shine a light', it creates shadows where a brutal dictator can hide while he hurts others. Look up "useful idiots" to understand the role they played. It's too easy to cite principle such as "transparency" in order to ignore the difficult questions of responsibility and…

I would characterize US media as the most prevalent source of misinformation for Americans. From the outright lies, blatant propaganda and media manipulation that dragged America into the Iraq War, to the despicably hallow coverage of the Syrian proxy war with context like the genocide in Bahrain completely whitewashed, all the way to silly equivocations like "Trump and Putin are best friends" or "Putin got a boobjob."

The US media bubble exists to satisfy it's customers, which are NOT it's consumers. These media organizations are paid to bring stories, ideas and perspectives - in the form of media narrative - to audiences. The GAO has indicated that the US is a huge buyer in this regard spending billions in advertising and PR (a huge component of the entire international industry).

Wikileaks is (was?) a credible voice that didn't editorialize. It refused to partially edit collections of documents, disclosing them in full. When we got a bunch of nonsense from the media about the SONY hacks, Wikileaks backed up the US government take that the attack was from North Korea by connecting the attack to US propaganda operations involving themselves in the filmaking process, and evaluating how to direct the film in a way that might destabilize the country (efforts that of course failed).

Similarly, much of the news reporting on Wikileaks by some of its compeditors has been filled with nonsense and unattributed rumors about Assange and it's teams of lawyers.

Media outlets rarely (never) provide the context that the HB Gary Federal leaks implicated the US in plans to disturb the quality of reporting out of Wikileaks to discredit it, in retaliation for disclosing US diplomatic cables that did a huge amount of damage to the US reputation (for having been duplicitous in countless ways with the public and with allies diplomats).

I feel as though there is a vacuum that will be created if Assange is killed and/or Wikileaks dismantled by intelligence. A vacuum for a peek behind the curtain of pro-government narrative that US National Security spends so much treasure making ubiquidous. A loss of Wikileaks may very well lead to a series of replacements (many of them garunteed to be various intelligence agencies) and therefore more leaks, until the militaries of various countries can more totally solve the problem of information control in the new internet medium.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty embarrassing, angry rant. Do you really doubt that Wikileaks would have released information about Trump if any had been leaked that was significant?

Check the 7th bullet point in the link.

I read it, I don't see your point. One must believe that WL was actively trying to help Trump to think it would just sit on relevant information. I don't believe that as Assange likened both candidates to various diseases in one of his earlier statements.
Post reply on HN