21–30 of 77 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
-
By damage do you mean indirect political damage stemming from the controversy surrounding Snowden, or direct damage to the US intel programs caused by the actual information that he released? To my knowledge there wasn't really any direct damage at all as a result of Snowden's actions (which is not always true of leakers, see Chelsea Manning)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do Snowden and Greenwald feel about having collaborated with Wikileaks given that they seem totally discredited by the revelation of their correspondence w/the Trump campaign?
We still don't have the whole story. I'm under the impression that Wikileaks started with good intentions but that Assange became compromised in some way by Russia after a certain time period. That doesn't discredit what they've published in the sense of it being false, moreso in the sense that its clearly biased and they're operating under an ulterior motive
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By damage do you mean indirect political damage stemming from the controversy surrounding Snowden, or direct damage to the US intel programs caused by the actual information that he released? To my knowledge there wasn't really any direct damage at all as a result of Snowden's actions (which is not always true of leakers, see Chelsea Manning)
-
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears that wikileaks did work directly with Trump Jr. to coordinate pro Trump leaks and campaigning [1]. Whether wikileaks was actually pro-Trump, or merely playing the part with the hope of developing a relationship which could lead to their acquisition of confidential information is unclear. "“Hey Don. We have an unusual idea,” WikiLeaks wrote on October 21, 2016. “Leak us one or more of your father’s tax retu…
You left out the part that I find horrifying: > It is the third reason, though, WikiLeaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” WikiLeaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.” It…
Can someone explain this in simple-english? It’s pretty difficult to understand good-doers from evil-doers here… Edit/clarification: non native english speaker here…
The burglars then went over their files, and found what seem to me to be pretty silly things, like FBI agents being instructed to create the perception that the organizations they were investigating had many FBI informers and agents in them.
They passed on the files to a reporter anonymously. Reporters and later investigations by Congress revealed more details about the FBI's cointelpro project, wherein the FBI committed illegal sabotage against groups they were investigating.
Who are the good and bad people? Well, the FBI is bad for committing illegal sabotage. The burglars are good for getting important information, but bad for doing it by stealing random boxes of files - which might've hindered legitimate investigations. The reporter is good for publishing her story. Congress is good for investigating further but bad for doing nothing effective to curtail abuses by American federal intelligence agencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We still don't have the whole story. I'm under the impression that Wikileaks started with good intentions but that Assange became compromised in some way by Russia after a certain time period. That doesn't discredit what they've published in the sense of it being false, moreso in the sense that its clearly biased and they're operating under an ulterior motive
I think Assange was "compromised" by his inability to deal, personally, with the disgusting things Wikileaks has revealed about America. That, to me, is the most significant aspect of recent events: what started out great, has been internalised and metastasised into rage, angst and frustration at the horrendous machinations of the US government and its partners in building the new world order ..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears that wikileaks did work directly with Trump Jr. to coordinate pro Trump leaks and campaigning [1]. Whether wikileaks was actually pro-Trump, or merely playing the part with the hope of developing a relationship which could lead to their acquisition of confidential information is unclear. "“Hey Don. We have an unusual idea,” WikiLeaks wrote on October 21, 2016. “Leak us one or more of your father’s tax retu…
You left out the part that I find horrifying: > It is the third reason, though, WikiLeaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” WikiLeaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.” It…
> The burglary, on March 8, 1971, at the F.B.I. office in an apartment building across from the county courthouse in Media, Pa., prompted a debate over whether the perpetrators were traitors who wantonly exposed official secrets or heroic whistle-blowers who preserved civil liberties. I do hope that this debate is considered thoroughly settled in favour of the whistle-blowers by now?
It's impossible to look at 46 years ago without seeing through the lens of four years ago, so I imagine people's opinions on Raines closely mirror their opinions on Snowden. Which is fine by me, as I think both Raines and Snowden should be viewed closer to the "heroic whistle-blowers" end of the spectrum. But I suspect there are many who see both Raines and Snowden as traitors. I'd be very interested in hearing the r…
Snowden collected gigabytes classified documents the vast majority of which had nothing to do with anything questionable. The program he revealed was not obviously illegal and, however distasteful, compared to NSA programs that came to light just a few years before that, small potatoes. His trove then ended up in the hands of unfriendly intelligence services.
It doesn't take mental contortions to view them quite differently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
-
...? I see this sort of comment every time Snowden comes up on HN. Someone alludes to secret knowledge about him, then makes a dramatic statement that doesn't have any actually-testable component. It's true, the extent of the damage Snowden caused may never be known - even if there wasn't any! Could you perhaps clarify any of this? I'm particularly interested by "the Honolulu hackerspace that he later used for his po…