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

701–710 of 1001 posts

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#701

Post by ruleabidinguser »

Cookingboy wrote: post #642
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.

"If this is true, this is incredibly bad, and the CIA should be discredited. What do you mean by "discredited"? If anything this gives a ton of credibility to CIA's rumored capability. Hell, it gives CIA so much credibility now that they can practically make up stuff and people will believe it by saying "oh they can bug everything, of course they found out about it".

It tells us what they can do but it certainly doesnt incentivize trust.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#702

Post by jwtadvice »

fastball wrote: post #689
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…

Let's say hypothetically that the Russian government has a Cyber Defense arm that has nearly the scope and capability as the US (the DNC/Hillary stuff seems to indicate this). Let's say this is true for many world powers (US, UK, China, and Russia for starters). However, it seems like Wikileaks, while claiming to be a neutral source that "just wants to make powerful people accountable", they only seem to be releasing…

Wikileaks published the internal communications of the Erdogan Administration in Turkey, indicating among other things (corruption) the administrations back channel to the Assad Administration in Syria (an enemy of the United States).

The fallout of these disclosures potentially contributed to a building coup attempt in Turkey by forces loyal to the US (which the US tacitly supported) that burst just a week after the disclosures.

Wikileaks does not only publish "against" America. When it does, it's closer to home for the Americans and we hear more news coverage about it. In any case, wouldn't it okay that there are outlets that produce true news focused on negative aspects of the United States, keeping it accountable? That seems like a positive thing to me - though I don't think Wikileaks is "it".

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#703

Post by Florin_Andrei »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #652
badloginagain wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I doubt it was a coincidence. Wikileaks supports Trump.

> Wikileaks supports Trump.

I wonder whose hand is really stuck in that sock puppet.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#704

Post by mtgx »

dvcc wrote: post #5

Based on the overview alone (of course I can't read the entire report that fast!), this is exactly what I expect a spy agency would be doing -- if they were not then I would be disappointed. What exactly in the admittedly shortened list am I supposed to be upset about? It makes no distinction between US citizens and overseas parties. If these actions are being done domestically against US citizens, with no just cause…

No, spy agencies aren't supposed to spy on every single person in the country.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#705

Post by latj »

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…

I agree with you that if the info is true that's good enough to use that infor. But it is still worth knowing the motivations of the people providing your information.

The truth is the most common source of bias in media is not telling out right lies but in deciding which truths to tell you. Its hard to believe that now given how much false information is being spread. But its still true. Propaganda is in the editing- choosing which stories get focus, which voices get amplified.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#706

Post by caf »

huffmsa wrote: post #312
wildmusings wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classified or not, works of the federal government are all in the public domain. And classification is not legally relevant to anyone except to those entrusted with protecting classified data.

This is often overlooked, but very correct. "Classification" only pertains to how the material should be treated within the government. Once its out, the only penalty can fall on the person who let it out into the wild.

However, this is not the case for information that is defined as "Restricted Data" under the Atomic Energy Act - you can get life in prison for passing that on to someone.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2274

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#707

Post by mdashx »

redahs wrote: post #678
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…

> 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/...

right... so it was something like `p@SSw0Rd`, what's the difference?

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#708

Post by whyenot »

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.

> READ MULTIPLE SOURCES

You can't do that when Wikileaks is the only source.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#709

Post by mtgx »

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 argument that "they're building a narrative" really rubs me the wrong way.

Yes, they're building a narrative - by pointing out the crap the CIA has been doing. This is not unlike how the US used to point out human rights abuses by China, Russia, and so on.

If the "narrative" is accurate, then that's on the CIA.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#710

Post by jwtadvice »

redahs wrote: post #678
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…

> 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/...

This is a far, far cry from the kinds of quality journalism that Wikileaks does. It appears that the claim the password was 'password' wasn't a story in and of itself but an anecdote relating to the weakness of Podesta's password (which is true).

Compare that to Clapper, Director of National Intelligence stating for the record under oath that national intelligence does not have a surveillance operation targeting Americans in the homeland. That was a lie and one intended for testimony.

Assange here is just saying: Podesta's password is weak. It's hard for him to qualify that it was spelled "p@ssw0rd" rather than "password" during an interview.

The fact that you think saying "password" rather than "p@ssw0rd" disqualifies Assange as a lier goes to the heart of the anti-body reaction that nationalists have about hearing news that doesn't validate pre-existing opinions that they have about the nobility of their nation and its leadership.

The difference between "password" and "p@ssw0rd", while technically true, it is so pedantic it does not apply to the spirit of the conversation.

Post reply on HN