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

CIA malware and hacking tools

wikileaks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#651

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

coldtea wrote: post #597
abandonliberty wrote: post #485

It's interesting to note that Julian Assange didn't demonstrate control of the wikileaks private key during his Reddit AMA 1 month ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_as... Considering the political situation unfolding in the US and who this leak weakens, there is some evidence that wikileaks is not in the hands of a neutral party. There is clear motive right now for undermining the CIA. Th…

> There is clear motive right now for undermining the CIA. And why NOT to undermine the CIA?

The CIA should have been splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#652

Post by blisterpeanuts »

badloginagain wrote: post #629
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks more like Wikileaks chose this timing to help Trump. No one is talking about his paranoid surveillance tweets now. Everyone's talking about how suddenly the CIA is in all our phones and TV sets. Trump gets to say "See, I told you!", and the world gets to witness another NSA surveillance style scandal, only this time possibly on an even larger scale.

Interesting coincidence that Wikileaks chose to help Trump during the election as well.

I doubt it was a coincidence. Wikileaks supports Trump.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#654

Post by turndown »

coldtea wrote: post #607
oculusthrift wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

everyone knows russia does it. their whole game is, "see. everyone oppresses their citizens. america is just as bad as us and real democracy can't exist"

Where everyone = every American that knows very little about foreign affairs (and probably couldn't even point Iowa on the map), but believes all the crap they see in mainstream media, from WMDs to the latest "Russians hacked our elections" -- and always roots for the current "enemy du jour" of the establishment. Aside from the constant pressure and threats, and the constant military presence around its borders, few…

>Seriously, why don't people just get a passport and try to talk to people around the world to see what they actually think?

Have you done this? A lofty goal.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#655

Post by oculusthrift »

coldtea wrote: post #607
oculusthrift wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

everyone knows russia does it. their whole game is, "see. everyone oppresses their citizens. america is just as bad as us and real democracy can't exist"

Where everyone = every American that knows very little about foreign affairs (and probably couldn't even point Iowa on the map), but believes all the crap they see in mainstream media, from WMDs to the latest "Russians hacked our elections" -- and always roots for the current "enemy du jour" of the establishment. Aside from the constant pressure and threats, and the constant military presence around its borders, few…

yes everyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant and uninformed.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#656

Post by legulere »

x1798DE wrote: post #630
noobermin wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While what they are publishing is true and should not be ignored, they certainly appear to be choosing their targets and not choosing others, for example, they claimed to have information from the RNC , but they did not publish it claiming it was already published in other sources. The timing of the leaks was rather suspect too. In interviews, Assange insinuated months before during the primary that he had the emails…

> While what they are publishing is true and should not be ignored Why does this matter? I feel like the reason people are worried about bias is that it means the source is not trustworthy. If Wikileaks is publishing true information, they should be trustworthy, even if their choice of targets is not unbiased.

It's kind of the effect we have with BPA. As soon as the idea got widespread that it might be unhealthy it was replaced with other chemicals we know less about and that might be even worse.

Intelligence Agencies often use information to push their agenda. I don't see why it is different for Wikileaks which sees itself as one.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#657

Post by megablast »

sushisource wrote: post #505
jMyles wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What exactly in the admittedly shortened list am I supposed to be upset about? That, with taxpayer dollars, the government of the United States is undermining the security of consumer devices around the world. Part of the difference between your worldview and the view of those of us who find this behavior childish and unacceptable is that you "expect a spy agency would be doing [this;] if they were not then [you] w…

You don't actually say why they shouldn't be doing this, though. Everyone with this opinion seems to base it on moral grounds around privacy, but in practical terms, is this really harming citizens? So far there's zero evidence these things being used illegally domestically. IE: Without a warrant. There is some evidence that they've prevented some wrongdoing with it, though. I get the theoretical moral argument. I ju…

You haven't looked at the dodgy stuff the CIA has done over the years, included bringing down governments, funding coups, responsible for the deaths of millions.

Yeah, I guess I don't think those guys should have power like this.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#659

Post by ruleabidinguser »

nikdaheratik wrote: post #650
x1798DE wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While what they are publishing is true and should not be ignored Why does this matter? I feel like the reason people are worried about bias is that it means the source is not trustworthy. If Wikileaks is publishing true information, they should be trustworthy, even if their choice of targets is not unbiased.

I think this is very naive. Russia lists a number of true things about its opponents but it only includes the truths that fit the story it wants to tell. The same goes for China, and even the U.S. What people here are asking is: "what is the story Wikileaks is trying to tell". Before they thought it was that "government is not trustworthy and needs a watchdog". Now it's possible the story is "Don't trust anyone who d…

This problem is instantly saolved if you have more than one source. The answer to this is not "IGNORE WIKILEAKS," and the suggestion that it is makes me doubt your motives, the answer is "READ MULTIPLE SOURCES."

There are far more than enough actors with far more than enough relevant information, and certainly the capacity to distribute that information, to fill in the gaps.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#660

Post by cjfont »

freyr wrote: post #620
raverbashing wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can publish only true facts and still push a narrative

> You can publish only true facts Can we go back to just calling them "facts"? A statement can be true or false, but a fact is true. You're playing into the idea that there are "false facts" or "alternative facts." There aren't. Those are lies or errors.

A statement can also be an opinion, I think the intention was to differentiate from statements that are meant to appear to be facts but are false.
Post reply on HN