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

Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 182 posts

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#101

Post by grandalf »

rdtsc wrote: post #95

I think out of all the "news" media so far Wikileaks is probably the most trustworthy. I've seen people claim they altered the emails or Russians wrote the emails, I think they'd have to point to specific instances for me to see it. I don't remember a single instance of them altering an email. I don't remember anyone credible refuting and saying they didn't write it. How do we know these emails are interesting and us…

> I've seen people claim they altered the emails or Russians wrote the emails, I think they'd have to point to specific instances for me to see it. I don't remember a single instance of them altering an email. I don't remember anyone credible refuting and saying they didn't write it.

Yes, once Wikileaks showed cryptographic proof that the emails were authentic, those criticisms stopped.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#102

Post by xnull2guest »

dsharlet wrote: post #86
mattnewton wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with you about the DNC emails, they go above and beyond preference into outright campaign strategy coordination and undermine the whole idea of the primary process. I think if they could have had and released the emails sooner the behavior could have been addressed and that would have been a service to Democrats and the public. It's awful medicine sure, but something has to wake the patient up. I have not…

> I disagree with you about the DNC emails, they go above and beyond preference into outright campaign strategy coordination and undermine the whole idea of the primary process. What exactly do you think the primaries are? They are not official elections. The democratic party (and the republican party) exist to help the candidates they want to support get elected. Note the mere existence of superdelegates. Primaries…

This is perfectly spot on. However, I'd argue that it took the DNC leaks for people en masse to understand this. People broadly thought that they had a legitimate say in the candidate promoted by the party affiliation.

Today, people still haven't really figured out that there are very narrow ideological differences between the two parties that control the entire electoral process. It's very obvious, of course, but it takes things like "shocking" leaks that show the emperor is naked.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#103

Post by generic_user »

grandalf wrote: post #91
generic_user wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donna Brazile was booted from CNN for rigging the national debate. Multiple people had to resign from the DNC for sending political agitators to Trump rallies to provoke violent confrontations. Journalists across all of the mainstream media outlets were coordinating stories with the DNC and gave editorial control to the John Podesta. Those are some seriously disturbing and undemocratic acts that We should all be appa…

Exactly. These are truly disturbing things that I'm still processing and am deeply troubled by. In my opinion, the worst is the deliberate undermining of the Democratic party by HRC's loyal henchpeople to help HRC win the primary unfairly. How can someone who doesn't respect the idea of a fair party primary respect the idea of the rule of law in general?

There are so many horrifying revelations that its hard to keep track of them all.

You had Debbie Wasserman Schultz rig the primary and resign in disgrace then immediately go to work on Hillary's campaign.

Million dollar 'gifts' to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments while she was the secretary of state.

It just goes on and on.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#104

Post by xnull2guest »

cldellow wrote: post #78
feklar wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> you could call him a Citibank executive, or you could call him the Chief of Staff in Bill Clinton's Treasury Department

You could point to a revolving door of administration between the private and public sector, along with public-private partnerships that launder would-be-illegal acts between public and private sectors.

It's a pretty big deal to have anyone besides a president elect choose their cabinet, much less an oligarchic figure.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#105

Post by TAForObvReasons »

rdtsc wrote: post #95

I think out of all the "news" media so far Wikileaks is probably the most trustworthy. I've seen people claim they altered the emails or Russians wrote the emails, I think they'd have to point to specific instances for me to see it. I don't remember a single instance of them altering an email. I don't remember anyone credible refuting and saying they didn't write it. How do we know these emails are interesting and us…

> I don't remember anyone credible refuting and saying they didn't write it.

The criticisms were generally of a different sort: editorializing in their selection of leaks. "selective omission", if you will.

They have information about Trump but chose not to release it. According to Breitbart (so you know it's not from a "liberal media" source): http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/27/wikileaks-info-dona...

> “We do have some information about the Republican campaign,” Assange said. “I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day ..."

I don't know about you, but I feel like it would have been helpful for the people to know what they had on Trump. Seems oddly opaque and politically motivated.

It really doesn't help that they were selling explicitly anti-Clinton merchandise in their store: http://i.imgur.com/AjsWfqg.jpg

This is one example. In other cases, such as the Syria files, known-to-have-existed emails that involved Russia mysteriously weren't leaked and many people have speculated that stemmed from a pro-Russia bias.

If they were releasing everything they had, it would be hard to criticize. But when you see the pattern of leaks and omissions, it's hard not to make the argument that they are playing politics.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#106

Post by xnull2guest »

generic_user wrote: post #61
skywhopper wrote: post #12

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…

Donna Brazile was booted from CNN for rigging the national debate. Multiple people had to resign from the DNC for sending political agitators to Trump rallies to provoke violent confrontations. Journalists across all of the mainstream media outlets were coordinating stories with the DNC and gave editorial control to the John Podesta. Those are some seriously disturbing and undemocratic acts that We should all be appa…

The incredible thing is that this type of coordination is not at all unusual. It's how the US media and propaganda system works. It's how stories from US narrative pervade all corners of US media simultaneously.

Plenty of people in Washington think what happened to the DNC was unfair. Because that's the way our system works. The only outcry was against the DNC because only the DNC was disclosed as participating in it.

There just simply haven't been a collection of leaks yet to "shock" the American public into understanding how coordinated the media is with US government narrative.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#107

Post by 75j »

colordrops wrote: post #36
skywhopper wrote: post #12

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…

It's really bizarre how your comment has made it to the top of this thread, considering that it seems that the prevailing opinion here on HN is supportive of wikileaks. Your claim that the leaks are not newsworthy is absurd in the extreme, and your judgement is in question. There are hundreds of items of greater interest and importance in those mails than in a good portion of news stories published by most major news…

It is bizarre. GP is, as you said, "either grossly misinformed or purposefully misleading readers". There is plainly illegal activity in those emails, and massive evidence of electoral fraud.

But whatever, it was the blue team that did it, so they get a pass. This is why it's actually good that Trump was elected. Now suddenly everyone cares again about mass deportation, war crimes, lobbying, etc. Now that we have an out-of-the-closet fascist as president, legislation like the 2012 NDAA doesn't seem like such a good idea anymore does it blue team?

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#108

Post by grandalf »

generic_user wrote: post #103
grandalf wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. These are truly disturbing things that I'm still processing and am deeply troubled by. In my opinion, the worst is the deliberate undermining of the Democratic party by HRC's loyal henchpeople to help HRC win the primary unfairly. How can someone who doesn't respect the idea of a fair party primary respect the idea of the rule of law in general?

There are so many horrifying revelations that its hard to keep track of them all. You had Debbie Wasserman Schultz rig the primary and resign in disgrace then immediately go to work on Hillary's campaign. Million dollar 'gifts' to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments while she was the secretary of state. It just goes on and on.

Yes, I hope someday we learn the details of which of those things were actually illegal and which were not. Schultz being immediately re-hired with no contrition or acknowledgement of wrongdoing by HRC was bizarre, I'd have thought the press would have forced some sort of statement on the subject.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#109

Post by ovibos »

jakewins wrote: post #30
shrewduser wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what is the significance of the insurance file hashes no longer matching the files?

None - they never did match the (encrypted) files. WL commented on this conspiracy theory earlier today, both saying Assange appreciates the concerns that he's dead, and saying that "obviously" the hashes are for decrypted files, not the encrypted ones: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/798997378552299521

> they never did match the (encrypted) files

The pre-commitment hashes have always matched the encrypted files, up to this point.

Re: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks

#110

Post by grandalf »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #105
rdtsc wrote: post #95

I think out of all the "news" media so far Wikileaks is probably the most trustworthy. I've seen people claim they altered the emails or Russians wrote the emails, I think they'd have to point to specific instances for me to see it. I don't remember a single instance of them altering an email. I don't remember anyone credible refuting and saying they didn't write it. How do we know these emails are interesting and us…

> I don't remember anyone credible refuting and saying they didn't write it. The criticisms were generally of a different sort: editorializing in their selection of leaks. "selective omission", if you will. They have information about Trump but chose not to release it. According to Breitbart (so you know it's not from a "liberal media" source): http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/27/wikileaks-info-dona... > “We do…

> This is one example. In other cases, such as the Syria files, known-to-have-existed emails that involved Russia mysteriously weren't leaked and many people have speculated that stemmed from a pro-Russia bias.

I thought of this, but certainly there would have been someone CC'ed on one of those emails who would have leaked it to prove WL was sitting on relevant emails. This didn't happen.

Post reply on HN