So instead of working with Chelsea Manning, they're doxxing Chelsea Manning?
Once upon a time Wikileaks was about holding governments to account. Apparently that was too hard because privacy violations appear to be the theme these days.
WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances
21–30 of 136 posts
Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances
#22>“We are thinking of making an online database with all 'verified' twitter accounts & their family/job/financial/housing relationships,” WikiLeaks tweeted Friday. Not WikiLeaks, but "WikiLeaks Task Force" (@WLTaskForce). I'm not even sure it's widely known who exactly is behind that account, though it's interestingly a verified account itself. UPD1 After some googling it seems the account is listed as official on wik…
There's a recent @wikileaks tweet saying only they can make official statements : https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817538212709203968
The link you posted still mentions the others though.
Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances
#23>“We are thinking of making an online database with all 'verified' twitter accounts & their family/job/financial/housing relationships,” WikiLeaks tweeted Friday. Not WikiLeaks, but "WikiLeaks Task Force" (@WLTaskForce). I'm not even sure it's widely known who exactly is behind that account, though it's interestingly a verified account itself. UPD1 After some googling it seems the account is listed as official on wik…
"though it's interestingly a verified account itself." So in the sake of transparency, they would be tracking themselves, right?
In theory :) But I didn't even know there could be effectively anonymous verified accounts like this one. I doubt this organization is officially registered in any sense, but it is verified by Twitter. Reading https://support.twitter.com/articles/20174631 it seems it is sufficient to have "A verified phone number, a confirmed email address, a bio, a profile photo, a header photo, a website" and also "If the account is a corporation or company account, the name reflects the real name of the corporation or company", "The profile and/or header photo reflects the person, the corporation’s branding, or the company’s branding". Looks like "copy of your official government-issued photo identification" is not needed in organization case.
Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances
#24I think this is a very good thing.
We need more accountability from public figures. Moral fibre is a rare element among the top 1%. If they can't regulate themselves, then someone else ought to do it.
We need an incentive for people to pay their fair share of taxes and to behave ethically - Protecting your public reputation is a good incentive.
The law is simply useless when it comes to ethical matters - Radical transparency might be a better solution.
Public figures currently have way too much control over their public image.
Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances
#25I don't like it one bit, but they're taking the internet to its logical conclusion. At least they're only doing it for public figures it seems, for now. It is probably totally legal too. This is what radical transparency looks like, by the way. It is consistent with and logically flows from Assange's long-stated philosophy. Basically, what the crowd on this website was defending when Wikileaks first came onto the pub…
The criteria for "verified" status have changed recently and I'm pretty sure it now includes a group much larger than the law's definition. There are quite a few JS developers with the tick mark, for example. And I doubt they'd count as celebrities.
And even for public figures, there are and/or should be (depending on jurisdiction) limits. Their family, for example, are people with their own rights, often don't fit the "public figure" definition, may be minors etc etc.
I also don't remember ever defending radical transparency, and I wouldn't even characterise Assange's actions as consistent with it. Or could I have an archive of his emails, please?
Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances
#26>“We are thinking of making an online database with all 'verified' twitter accounts & their family/job/financial/housing relationships,” WikiLeaks tweeted Friday. Not WikiLeaks, but "WikiLeaks Task Force" (@WLTaskForce). I'm not even sure it's widely known who exactly is behind that account, though it's interestingly a verified account itself. UPD1 After some googling it seems the account is listed as official on wik…
There's a recent @wikileaks tweet saying only they can make official statements : https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817538212709203968 The link you posted still mentions the others though.
Thanks, didn't see this one! Apparently WaPo should update their article then, though replies to that tweet point out that @WLTaskForce is still mentioned in @wikileaks's profile. Quite a confusing story.
Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances
#27[deleted]
Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances
#28Much more silliness to follow until Wikileaks is thoroughly destroyed
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5cgwau/has_wiki...
Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances
#29I don't like it one bit, but they're taking the internet to its logical conclusion. At least they're only doing it for public figures it seems, for now. It is probably totally legal too. This is what radical transparency looks like, by the way. It is consistent with and logically flows from Assange's long-stated philosophy. Basically, what the crowd on this website was defending when Wikileaks first came onto the pub…
The criteria for "verified" status have changed recently and I'm pretty sure it now includes a group much larger than the law's definition. There are quite a few JS developers with the tick mark, for example. And I doubt they'd count as celebrities. And even for public figures, there are and/or should be (depending on jurisdiction) limits. Their family, for example, are people with their own rights, often don't fit t…
[deleted]
Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
"At least they're only doing it for public figures it seems" Public figures are those we elect and put in government service, at least that was the original intended definition. Seems we've drifted from that definition into a rather dystopian one, with Assange.
> Public figures are those we elect and put in government service The courts disagree with you on that point, also including celebrities, business leaders, athletes, etc. Position in government is only one avenue by which people exercise power or achieve fame .
Hopefully they start tracking judges and prosecutors too, since they are the group arguably failing the public the most.