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

101–110 of 136 posts

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

#101

Post by nikcub »

indy wrote: post #62
redthrowaway wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, you either believe people like Assange, Greenwald, and Snowden are honest people, or you don't. I do not, to say the least. The three of them strike me as some of the most fundamentally dishonest people in the public sphere.

Glenn Greenwald is known for taking quotes out of context in order to deliberately misrepresent people such as Sam Harris.

I'd be interested in an example of this if you have one, because I read all the source materials in this story and found his arguments compelling (after initially buying into the narrative)

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

#102

Post by danso »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #90
danso wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "broken" privacy even mean?

>"What does "broken" privacy even mean?" "Broken" means "doesn't work". In the context of GP's post, the suggestion is that attempting privacy through obscurity doesn't work/is ineffective.

A large part of privacy is fundamentally about obscurity. If you have sex in a public park and someone tapes it, it can be put up on YouTube. If you have sex in your fenced backyard pool and someone holds their camera up over your fence to film it, you have a very good invasion of privacy lawsuit, even though your privacy had been "broken".

Similarly, the burden of legal proof for libel or defamation are different for public vs private figures. An obscure YouTube vidmaker has a substantially different burden of proof than does a popular Youtuber when it comes to certain scopes of libel/defamation.

Yes, there is a kind of privacy you can expect in your own home. But some right to privacy is preserved even if you go out the in public

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

#103

Post by rounce »

hxsatvv wrote: post #43
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…

WikiLeaks decided to leak documents that damaged Hillary's reputation. 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.

Not really, I think people are more riled up about a perceived about-face regarding it's founding principles, and to seemingly target certain orgs rather than stick to what many feel it was founded to do which is impartially publicly disclose confidential government & NGO information which is in the public interest.

If you purport to be holier than thou, you'd better make damn sure you at least stick to your story.

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

#104

Post by indy »

nikcub wrote: post #101
indy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glenn Greenwald is known for taking quotes out of context in order to deliberately misrepresent people such as Sam Harris.

I'd be interested in an example of this if you have one, because I read all the source materials in this story and found his arguments compelling (after initially buying into the narrative)

Here are some links describing incidents where Glenn Greenwald has taken quotes out of context:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/dear-fellow-liberal2

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defam...

https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/803464221786677248

Edit: And just to add in this particular case I'm in agreement with you, his arguments do seem compelling.

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

#105

Post by JoachimS »

pron wrote: post #60
Findeton wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Having read that, the Guardian's summary and the original interview, I find the Guardian's summary to be, by far, the more honest description of the interview (albeit not a perfect one). Greenwald's different personal interpretation (which he seems to believe invalidates the Guardian's interpretation as a complete fabrication) is merely the belief that when reporting the news (even while linking to the full account!)…

Does Assange imply that the state of independent media to be so much better in Russia than in the West that WL is needed elsewhere? Why does WL exist given the statement by Assange?

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

#106

Post by JoachimS »

redthrowaway wrote: post #49
confounded wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of...

Look, you either believe people like Assange, Greenwald, and Snowden are honest people, or you don't. I do not, to say the least. The three of them strike me as some of the most fundamentally dishonest people in the public sphere.

I don't think its fair to bundle them together. What Assange is doing and acting is way differnt from Snowden, Greenwald. Or Poitras, Manning for that matter.

Each of these people should be looked at based on their own actions.

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

#107

Post by rounce »

ycmbntrthrwaway wrote: post #5
ColanR wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you're referring too...?

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5cgwau/has_wiki...

Had to laugh at the opening paragraph of that thread:

> I think it is high time that we address the elephant in the room. I am not saying to stop what we are doing, but we need to band together and get wikileaks to prove themselves, or we need to take everything read with a grain of salt.

Surely we should be taking everything we read with a grain of salt?

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

#108

Post by [deleted] »

redthrowaway wrote: post #42

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…

[deleted]

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

#109

Post by danso »

chvid wrote: post #94
danso wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually, such a process is done by starting with lists of those who are actually powerful. These lists are plentiful, especially in democracies. Starting with the presumption that the world's influencers are all on Twitter is a strange view of how the world works.

You have to work with the data that is available. Lists of most influential or most powerful people are also based on data available and possibly some subjective assessment. Some times when I scroll thru them I get the feeling they are far from the truth. Not that I know exactly what the truth is.

> Lists of most influential or most powerful people are also based on data available and possibly some subjective assessment

The measure of "power" and "influence" has always been a subjective assessment, whether it's PageRank or the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

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

#110

Post by maxt »

redthrowaway wrote: post #42

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…

I recall about a week after the Snowden disclosures some people saying the Snowden leaks were deliberate and that NSA has kept up this tradition of false flag disclosures. If anything, the whole web is certainly more secure now, and Snowden is even quoted as saying: "I still work for the NSA" after the leaks. I don't buy the rhetoric that NSA is simply all about slurping up plaintext. They have a duty to secure the web too. It's a weird paradox that they both want more security and want all the plaintext they can salvage.
Post reply on HN