41–50 of 136 posts
No. It means to release publicly available documents (docs -> dox) about the subject of a journalistic investigation - usually by amateur journalists. When professional journalists do it, it's just called "journalism".
It seems like there are a few die-hards left who thought Assange and Manning were the greatest thing ever exposes the big bad USG, and are refusing to acknowledge the obvious: wikileaks exists so the FSB can run agitprop against its geopolitical foes.
Edit: I'd just like to point out the fact that all of these downvotes are flooding in at 3:00 am PST on a Friday night. Can anyone think of a timezone that might coincide with?
Ok. I went and read some of the tweets this article is based on. I think what Wikileaks wants to build is a social graph of influential and powerful people (big enough names to have a blue check mark) using their tweets. Then weight and couple that with information on family relations, job, living place and so on - available from other public sources (i.e. Wikipedia biographies, LinkedIn or official websites). Sounds…
That means that in the tech world they have been shunned and marginalised, like everybody who didn't bitch too much about the existence of Trump.
Now it doesn't matter whatever they say or do, they'll get negative press. They are blacklisted.
Or they're just a front for Russian intelligence, as has been suggested for years, as evidenced by the fact that Assange says there's no need to report on Russia because of the "free and open media" they have, as evidenced by his show on RT, as evidenced by their facilitating Snowden's defection, as evidenced by... It seems like there are a few die-hards left who thought Assange and Manning were the greatest thing ev…
Or they're just a front for Russian intelligence, as has been suggested for years, as evidenced by the fact that Assange says there's no need to report on Russia because of the "free and open media" they have, as evidenced by his show on RT, as evidenced by their facilitating Snowden's defection, as evidenced by... It seems like there are a few die-hards left who thought Assange and Manning were the greatest thing ev…
Mind giving the source where Assange said that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We have your name and address. Stop talking about the connections between Wikileaks and Putin." That's why.
Either that, or more like: "Here's why X CNN writer is supporting a war in Iran - his wife's cousin is an executive at Y weapons maker."
I'm also skeptical of the power of money to motivate people to do anything like that. If it were happening on any scale, they're doing a pretty remarkable job of hiding it.
Or they're just a front for Russian intelligence, as has been suggested for years, as evidenced by the fact that Assange says there's no need to report on Russia because of the "free and open media" they have, as evidenced by his show on RT, as evidenced by their facilitating Snowden's defection, as evidenced by... It seems like there are a few die-hards left who thought Assange and Manning were the greatest thing ev…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We have your name and address. Stop talking about the connections between Wikileaks and Putin." That's why.
If Wikileaks is indeed connected to Putin, and they are intended to prosecute you for talking about it, don't you think Putin has more resources to find out where you live than Wikileaks? I mean, of this (hypothetical) tandem, I'd rather be afraid of the guy with trillions of dollars, nukes and one of the best intelligence services on the planet than of a guy that has to hide in Ecuadorian embassy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mind giving the source where Assange said that?
See: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of...
I 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 tran…