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

111–120 of 136 posts

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

#111

Post by antikaon »

I think this is an absolutely hilarious troll and I congratulate Wikileaks on it.

Why?

This already exists. It's not just for verified Twitter users either. You have used this "database" yourself. You and your family are already in it. Wikileaks will use this "database" to raise awareness of just how dangerous it is. It will rile everyone up and create a groundswell of action to thwart it. When the outrage reaches it's peak, the name of the "database" will be revealed:

It's called Google+Facebook+Twitter+LinkedIn+Reddit+Yahoo+Amazon+Apple+Youtube+Pinterest+Instagram

EDIT: typo

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

#112

Post by notahacker »

oheard wrote: post #97
69mlgsniperdad wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was almost certain the things you're suggesting were true, however I also thought Julian assange was no longer alive, or not free/able to reach out, as did the people who came up with and spread the theories that something big went down. However this week Hannity flew to the UK and interviewed Julian Assange who is alive and well. Don't you think he might have hinted at the fact that such was the case during the in…

See https://twitter.com/oheard/status/817486353801900032 It's entirely plausible that the video interview was not actually Assange. AFAIK there has been no cryptographic verification, that's the only thing that could prove all is well.

If there was cryptographic verification, the same people doubting that video would suspect that his cryptographic keys had been compromised.

(Which, come to think of it, is a lot more likely than actors as disparate as Sean Hannity, John Pilger, the Swedish prosecutor, the Ecuadorean embassy and Pamela Anderson all being very happy to pretend to interact with a Fake Assange who keeps making very similar arguments to the inexplicably-disappeared Real Assange.)

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

#113

Post by forgottenpass »

rounce wrote: post #103
hxsatvv wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I dunno, it seems like the it's the news narrative about wikileaks doing the about-face.

I'm not some defender of wikileaks or Assagne, I just don't think who they are is all that important.

When I first heard of wikileaks a decade ago on slashdot, Assange was a tosser with some unpopular opinions and perspective. He also believed in the utility of releasing the entirety of source material to the public instead of a regular news outlet that limits it to the topics they have the time and interest to investigate and write. The broad strokes have remained constant even if the details haven't.

Ever since then, the press has been trying to find meaning in the Wikileaks dog-and-pony show. A circus that they themselves were complicit in creating. They've been trying, and failing, to understand this guy since 2010. The muddled mass of hot takes but no real insight is what they've been dumping onto us in the meantime.

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

#114

Post by pron »

JoachimS wrote: post #105
pron wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

By now he's learned that a lot of people will support him no matter how little sense he makes, so he just engages in gaslighting full on, and then Glenn Greenwald tells the cheering inhabitants of bullshit mountain how it's newspapers like the Guardian that are really sources of fake news because they explain Assange's unhinged propaganda rather than just repeat it.

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

#115

Post by hzhzjsj »

The disinformation campaign against Wikileaks and Snowden is astounding. Sure neither are perfect but to claim they are Russian outfits or cia counter-counter-counter intellgence operations is tin-foil hat territory. Add this to the fact we know there are things like the 77 brigade should give you pause when seeing attacks like some of the comments here

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

#116

Post by dang »

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…

Making an inflammatory claim and calling it "obvious" guarantees the kind of thread we don't want on HN. That amounts to trolling. Please don't do it, and please don't stoke flamewars once they get going, either.

Accusations of astroturfing or shilling without evidence are not allowed on HN. Rushing to that as an explanation is, invariably, evidence of sloppy thinking—or maybe non-thinking, of the kind that political passion leads us all to. It should have been obvious that there are many countries where people were reading HN at that hour and that you'd given plenty of them plenty of reason to downvote. It's embarrassing to see a comment here insinuate that only Russian spies could possibly disagree, and just as embarrassing to see how many users upvote such an absurdity.

This community is deeply divided on divisive issues. People on all sides need to conduct themselves more civilly than this, so please don't do it again.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13343037 and marked it off-topic.

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

#117

Post by gnipgnip »

rounce wrote: post #98
gnipgnip wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, since Assange accused the Guardian of sharing cables (meant for reporting) with the Mossad.

Well, everybody knows the basic threat model from which all threat models are derived is: "Mossad or Not-Mossad?"[0]. [0] https://vimeo.com/95066828

Touche ctr shill man

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

#118

Post by dang »

redthrowaway wrote: post #64
Findeton wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If this was ever a productive conversation, it is no longer.

Your comments did more than anyone else's in this thread (that I read) to destroy productive conversation. I understand how these things feel and that it's always, with high confidence, the other person who blew it—but civil conversation requires that we each catch ourselves in that bias.

It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political arguments for a while now. That's not what this site is for, so please don't. (Edit: actually, that last bit was probably unfair on my part—it was probably just a case of election-seasonitis, which afflicted most commenters, rather than an abuse of the site. Sorry about that.)

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

#119

Post by [deleted] »

caminante wrote: post #92
smcl wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 intervi…

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. "Impartial?" I'm not seeing "liar"/"thief" or any such innuendo in the opening. Here's the full article [0] -- which is an extract from an upcoming book. This pokes holes in Snowden's narrative, i.e. How Snowden Escaped Hong Kong Exclusive [1], and, if true, would fill a…

[deleted]

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

#120

Post by foldr »

smcl wrote: post #77
redthrowaway wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 intervi…

>so I'm not sure how impartial we can consider it to be.

Surely the question isn't whether it's 'impartial' but whether it's accurate. If he is a liar and a thief then it's perfectly ok for the WSJ to call him one.

Post reply on HN