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

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#671

Post by tlow »

alpha_squared wrote: post #603
ismay wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He very clearly explained his motives for not doing so in the AMA, and he gave an alternate POL by reading from the blockchain. This whole narrative of Wikileaks not being neutral is a very weird story, because they've never published anything that wasn't verified to be true. Since that's something they can't be attacked on, it seems that the strategy for discrediting Wikileaks has now become to accuse them of associ…

For the purpose of devil's advocate in this, I think it's possible to state truths and still be misleading and/or distracting from another narrative. Just because something is true doesn't necessarily explain what the motive is for releasing that information. It's certainly healthy to have at least a shadow of a doubt as to what WikiLeaks's motivations are when it's already shown that it can either restrain itself fr…

"In fact, the Devil's Advocate may be the biggest innovation killer in America today. "[1]

[1] Tom Kelley, co-founder of Ideo as in '10 Faces of Innovation'

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#672

Post by chillwaves »

anigbrowl wrote: post #636
megablast wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is clear motive right now for undermining the CIA. I think this is irrelevant and distracts from the issue. You are trying to change the narrative. If this is true, this is incredibly bad, and the CIA should be discredited.

Why is it bad? Does anyone expect spies not to have spy tools? Espionage is their job, after all.

Maybe GP is starting to finally see the CIA how the rest of the world has seen them for say, oh the last 60 years or so.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#673

Post by Sunset »

rosalinekarr wrote: post #20

This idea that the government should somehow be exempt from proper cybersecurity ethics is disgusting. When the CIA or the NSA find zero day attacks in software, they should report them immediately to be fixed, not build tools specifically to exploit them. It's only a matter of time before these attacks either leak or are rediscovered by other malicious parties. The government is effectively turning their own people…

There are no "proper cybersecurity ethics". Whatever your chosen ethical framework is, it's not absolute and you don't get to impose yours on all other people.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#674

Post by incompatible »

Cookingboy wrote: post #646
coldtea wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because we don't live in a Disney movie where everyone gets along and lives happily ever after? Do you think if we get rid of CIA the Russians will just disband the FSB? The Chinese will just suddenly become transparent and stop all international espionage? The entire world will suddenly love US and try to suck up to the biggest superpower?

Some of us are not USians. I'd say if your goal is to make people elsewhere in the world love the US, then CIA dirty tricks isn't the way to do it. Dirty tricks by other governments wouldn't do much if the US was a genuinely beneficial influence in the world. At the moment it's not so clear that the US is beneficial, with it doing some things that are useful, but which Trump seems to want to eliminate as soon as possible, and other things that are questionable.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#675

Post by [deleted] »

jMyles wrote: post #645
freyr wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's useful to be able to talk about "facts" - including a fact pattern which is inaccurate - as distinct from opinion or assessment. From WikiPedia: > Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a true fact, (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English.

[deleted]

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#676

Post by wadeboggs »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #643
Daishiman wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The insane, continued obsession over Hillary's emails and the phrasing of the social media accounts is definitely not congruent with the clear-headed logic and essays that Assange has written in the Wikileaks manifesto, "Cypherpunks", and others. The Wikileaks Twitter handle just used a Fox News video as evidence for something. You could say the man's gone insane, but the theory of these accounts and the WL org being…

Hmm. Someone do some frequency analysis on the tweets and compare the date ranges before and after the Assange hiatus.

edits to do list

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#677

Post by thiagoharry »

ruleabidinguser wrote: post #659
nikdaheratik wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly! People say: "I think Wikileaks is not a neutral party". Dude, NO ONE is a neutral party. This thing doesn't exist! All sources have bias!

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#678

Post by redahs »

ismay wrote: post #576
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…

He very clearly explained his motives for not doing so in the AMA, and he gave an alternate POL by reading from the blockchain. This whole narrative of Wikileaks not being neutral is a very weird story, because they've never published anything that wasn't verified to be true. Since that's something they can't be attacked on, it seems that the strategy for discrediting Wikileaks has now become to accuse them of associ…

> because they've never published anything that wasn't verified to be true

Mr Assange repeatedly claimed that Podesta's gmail password was 'password' in interviews, which was false:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jan/06/...

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#679

Post by freyr »

chillwaves wrote: post #668
freyr wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Because context matters? And people with any level of sophistication in their thinking can understand that. I don't even know how to respond to some folks here. You really think it's impossible to use facts to construct a narrative that is untrue? https://hbr.org/2016/10/theres-a-word-for-using-truthful-fac... Come on now. We're better than this.

> You really think it's impossible to use facts to construct a narrative that is untrue?

What? That's completely unrelated to what I said, which is simply that the phrase "true facts" is redundant.

> people with any level of sophistication in their thinking can understand that. I don't even know how to respond to some folks here.

I wrote just two lines of text to express a simple thought using basic vocabulary. The fact that you misunderstood my comment so thoroughly, and yet with such extreme condescension, is simply spectacular.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#680

Post by supergirl »

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…

> This comment was immediately down voted on Reddit. Someone is seeking to control the narrative.

Please...

Post reply on HN