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

WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 136 posts

Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances

#71

Post by redthrowaway »

smcl wrote: post #68
redthrowaway wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They all lie constantly, and have been proven to lie constantly. Snowden lied about pretty much every part of his story. He didn't have the access he claimed, he didn't have the knowledge he claimed, he lied about the timeline of his defection, he lied about reading or screening the documents he stole, he lied about the actual behaviours he exposed, he lied about the safeguards in place... the list goes on. Snowden,…

I didn't downvote you, but I think you're being downvoted because you're being a little vague. If Snowden is lying constantly (particularly as you say about the behaviours he exposed) I'd expect the criticism to be more specific than what you said. Also the "they want to take down the United States" thing is pretty extreme and a bit "InfoWars" sounding, and if you listen to him and his justifications for what he did…

>I'd expect the criticism to be more specific than what you said.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/the...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/17/either-edwa...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fable-of-edward-snowden-1483...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/5-ways-nsa-leaker-edward-snowdens...

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/snowden-lied-and-acted-out-of-piqu...

>hey want to take down the United States" thing is pretty extreme and a bit "InfoWars" sounding

USG, not US. There's a very specific sort of western libertarian/leftist that believes the US' foreign policy is evil, that the military-intelligence wing is a tool of evil, and that opposing it in any way possible is an unalloyed good. I put all three of them in that camp. You could add the likes of Chomsky to that mix. That doesn't mean they don't like their conception of what America is or could be, but they see America's actions in the world as evil and in need of opposing.

Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances

#72

Post by rounce »

Findeton wrote: post #55
redthrowaway wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He said: “In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum. There are also newspapers like “Novaya Gazeta”, in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn’t a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Mosc…

The Guardian’s Summary of Julian Assange’s Interview Went Viral and Was Completely False https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of... Please don't try to spread FAKE NEWS.

Greenwald is an occasionally decent writer with a penchant for over-exaggeration and finger pointing. I used to be an ardent fan of The Intercept, but more recently have noticed it becoming far angrier and politically charged. In addition, it seems far more willing to play fast and loose with the truth, lack citation, and generally falsify as much as it accuses. Leading to the current state of the comments section on there where anyone who would rather take a more nuanced pragmatic view of things is called a "shill" by some bleating anti-authoritarian sheep.

Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances

#73

Post by justinschuh »

Sephr wrote: post #20

WikiLeaks' online presence was taken over in October, when riseup.net got an NSL to give access to the email accounts associated with the WL Twitter accounts and other WL properties. Around that time WL removed some insurance file torrent links from wikileaks.org, distributed new pre-commitment hashes, and stopped responding to PGP-encrypted email. People who work for WikiLeaks are still probably involved, but they a…

> when riseup.net got an NSL to give access to the email accounts

This is simply not true. An NSL cannot be used to compel access to any communication content—and certainly not control of an account; they're limited solely to metadata (e.g. phone call records, IP addresses, billing metadata, etc.). I'm not a fan of NSLs, and strongly support repealing the section 505 expansion, but it behooves no one to lie about what an NSL is and what it can compel.

Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances

#74

Post by notahacker »

matt4077 wrote: post #46
mtgx wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Your wife's cousin is four steps removed from you. If you believe corruption works at that distance, you're not going to find anyone to trust. Especially if you factor in that people who want to find connections somehow always find them. ("She's an environmentalist -> she hates cars -> cars need gas -> made from oil - war interrupts export -> prices rise -> fewer cars"). I'm also skeptical of the power of money to mo…

I absolutely agree with you, but also don't doubt that making "you're obviously lying on behalf of your corrupt paymasters because you're connected to X through Y and Z" accusations easier is the purpose of this proposed initiave.

Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances

#77

Post by smcl »

redthrowaway wrote: post #71
smcl wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't downvote you, but I think you're being downvoted because you're being a little vague. If Snowden is lying constantly (particularly as you say about the behaviours he exposed) I'd expect the criticism to be more specific than what you said. Also the "they want to take down the United States" thing is pretty extreme and a bit "InfoWars" sounding, and if you listen to him and his justifications for what he did…

>I'd expect the criticism to be more specific than what you said. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/the... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/17/either-edwa... http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fable-of-edward-snowden-1483... https://www.yahoo.com/news/5-ways-nsa-leaker-edward-snowdens... https://ca.news.yahoo.com/snowden-lied-and-acted-out-of-piqu... >hey want to take down the United…

edit: Again I'm not the one downvoting you, disagreeing with someone is not a reason to downvote IMO

I was kinda hoping for something a bit more substantial - those aren't particularly convincing and smell slightly of hit-pieces attempting to smear Snowden while conveniently diverting from the main issue (that the US Government applies an insane level of surveillance on the US people).

First story is about an interview with Putin and why he didn't go in harder on him. The second is that his NSA boss denies he had the sweeping access he had (of course he did, the official line is still that these programs don't exist isn't it?). The WSJ one I couldn't read in its entirety but it opened by calling him a liar and a thief, so I'm not sure how impartial we can consider it to be. Both yahoo articles boil down to "we don't think he could earn and do what he said he did". None really discredit what he leaked, they all seem to be geared towards stoking the flames around this idea that he's an untrustworthy, shady liar who has questionable motivations.

I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, which is fine - neither of us are in a position to change anything around the situation. But your final line - "they see America's actions in the world as evil and in need of opposing" - man it's really hard to argue that this isn't true. Even if we just look at the Middle East, what the US and the UK have been up to over there for the last few decades is pretty appalling.

Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances

#78

Post by chvid »

danso wrote: post #66
chvid wrote: post #35

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…

The @verified badge does not really signify a "big enough" name. Back when it was a manual process, unless you were a huge celebrity, you got on the list if you were a member of a media organization and if Twitter happened to contact your comms/social media person to submit a list of employees and Twitter names. People with just a hundred or so followers could be verified this way. Now that you can apply to be verifi…

Yes. It would have to be coupled with information on how rich and powerful someone is coming from other sources.

Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances

#79

Post by notahacker »

bitJericho wrote: post #30
wildmusings wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Personally I think judges and prosecutors do a better job when their principal concern is the law, and not the recent publication of information on the home addresses of members of their extended family who don't have a security detail. YMMV.

Re: WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances

#80

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

Findeton wrote: post #61
redthrowaway wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll forgive me if I decline to take the world of one of the most fundamentally dishonest and unprincipled people in the public sphere on this matter. I'm no fan of the guardian, but if they said the sky was green and he said it was blue, I'd go outside and check.

I'm sorry, but I don't find him dishonest at all. In the other hand, reading the full script of what Assange said, I find YOU dishonest.

Unfortunately, with that comment, you've undermined what might have been a decent original point. You now just come across as someone who like to call people dishonest for no good reason.
Post reply on HN