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

Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

emma.best

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 227 posts

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#51

Post by porphyrogene »

mywittyname wrote: post #33
porphyrogene wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> almost certainly What are you criteria for near certainty and what evidence-supported claims are there that satisfy those criteria?

If there were solid evidence of this fact, the statement wouldn't need a qualifier. Their behavior is consistent with what you'd expect from an intelligence agency. Such as well-timed releases during the 2016 US Presidential Election which seemed to heavily favor a candidate with strong ties to a foreign government well known for their intelligence capabilities.

I think you are confusing a conceivable narrative for a well-reasoned explanation.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#53

Post by jayd16 »

marknutter wrote: post #27
ancymon wrote: post #8

Is it false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks was a tool used to affect US election?

It's certainly false.

How can you say this when the current understanding is that Guccifer 2.0 was a persona operated by the Russian military? Even if Assange was acting in good faith (a big assumption) , he was used to push Russian propaganda.

There's no question he was a tool of the Russian government.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#55

Post by hannasanarion »

davidwitt415 wrote: post #37

Please try to suspend the snark-meter for a second and realize the truths being stated here by Wikileaks. For example, the supposed Manafort/Assange meeting was trumpeted by The Guardian to great fanfare, yet there is literally no evidence that it happened (ex. no security cameras inside or out showed Manafort entering the embassy). https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua... Clearly, we are being…

Speaking of just reading the headline, The Intercept piece you linked has the facts wrong, apparently relying on readers like you not having read the original Guardian story.

1. There is photo evidence, but the Guardian cannot publish it for one reason or another. They described the clothes he was wearing that day in detail.

2. There is an entry in the guestbook for him, it doesn't come up when you ctrl-f because they misspelled his name, it appears as "Paul Manaford".

This isn't "lack of transparency", it's protecting your sources.

But, then again, I wouldn't expect The Intercept to know how to tell the difference, seeing how they've burned Reality Winner and Terry Albury.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#56

Post by sigmar »

jstanley wrote: post #50
sigmar wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(ex. no security cameras inside or out showed Manafort entering the embassy). rofl. you don't think there are video cameras both inside and outside of the embassy?

Quite the opposite. It is not the presence of video cameras both inside and outside that is disputed, but the presence of footage of Manafort.

okay. but if it did happen, how would you (or I) have seen this footage? governments don't open source all their intelligence gathering as it happens. Hardly seems like a relevant point that refutes the Guardian's description of it happening

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#57

Post by dragonwriter »

davidwitt415 wrote: post #37

Please try to suspend the snark-meter for a second and realize the truths being stated here by Wikileaks. For example, the supposed Manafort/Assange meeting was trumpeted by The Guardian to great fanfare, yet there is literally no evidence that it happened (ex. no security cameras inside or out showed Manafort entering the embassy). https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua... Clearly, we are being…

> The Guardian to great fanfare, yet there is literally no evidence that it happened (ex. no security cameras inside or out showed Manafort entering the embassy).

So, you've reviewed all the security camera footage inside and outside the embassy? Or, are you mistaking “no security camera footage has been leaked to the public showing this” for “none of the security camera footage shot shows this”?

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#58

Post by stupidcar »

davidwitt415 wrote: post #37

Please try to suspend the snark-meter for a second and realize the truths being stated here by Wikileaks. For example, the supposed Manafort/Assange meeting was trumpeted by The Guardian to great fanfare, yet there is literally no evidence that it happened (ex. no security cameras inside or out showed Manafort entering the embassy). https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua... Clearly, we are being…

I think you mean "a group of scientists have theorised that a recording obtained by the Associated Press, which the AP claimed to be 'generally consistent' with the sound heard by some US diplomats who reported being attacked, could be a recording of crickets", which is a very different thing than suggesting the attack has been "revealed" as crickets.

For someone so concerned with not being "played" by the media, you seem strangely happy to play exactly the same kinds of games with the facts.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#59

Post by mcguire »

dreen wrote: post #41
davidwitt415 wrote: post #37

Please try to suspend the snark-meter for a second and realize the truths being stated here by Wikileaks. For example, the supposed Manafort/Assange meeting was trumpeted by The Guardian to great fanfare, yet there is literally no evidence that it happened (ex. no security cameras inside or out showed Manafort entering the embassy). https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua... Clearly, we are being…

But why make it confidential? That is one thing I don't understand. Why didn't they just publish this list on their website and sent a link? Maybe it's just a stupid idea on someones part...

Taking public notice of this kind of activity (and certainly making a list of things that are defamatory) seems to be regarded as a PR mistake, usually. (Of course, leaking a private list is worse...)

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#60

Post by hannasanarion »

smacktoward wrote: post #34
marpstar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WikiLeaks has almost certainly been compromised by global intelligence agencies and is operating as a front.

It's not clear to me that intelligence agencies would have ever needed to compromise WikiLeaks-the-organization. WikiLeaks' whole methodology was to publish, unedited and unredacted, any documents anyone handed them. Any intelligence agency that wanted a clean way to get some illicitly-obtained documents out into public view could therefore do so just by handing them to WikiLeaks, without needing to subvert the organ…

We can tell that wikileaks is now a front precisely because they have stopped operating in the way you describe.

They no longer publish everything they have been given (Assange once claimed to have documents embarassing to Russia but they are as yet unpublished).

They no longer publish documents indiscriminately (Podesta emails trickled out over the course of October 2016 for maximum political effect on the election)

If that wasn't enough, everyone should've been convinced that wikileaks is compromised when Assange refused to demonstrate that he held the wikileaks signing private key during his reddit AMA

Post reply on HN