There is a disturbing level of pro Bolsonaro astroturfing going on in here.
Don't be deceived, Greenwald is a political prisoner.
Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil
51–60 of 181 posts
Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil
#52It's important to notice that he's not been charged for publishing those materials. He's been charged for giving instructions to the hackers about targets and contents, like a lider of the hackers. So, it's not a leak, it's a content obtained illegally through a series of crimes.
This is something journalists do all the time. If a source comes to you, even with illegally obtained materials, it is normal for a journalist to ask for more, that's their job.
Is is legal for a journalist to ask for a hacker to get some private information about chosen politician in America? (Serious question).
Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil
#53Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is something journalists do all the time. If a source comes to you, even with illegally obtained materials, it is normal for a journalist to ask for more, that's their job.
Well, that's something that we need to think about: should we allow journalists to be free of charged when they know they sources is actively hacking someone to get those content? I truly don't have an answer, but I think this ethical question must be done.
Ethically, if the information is in the public interest, ie it exposes some corruption or something illegal that the government is doing that is a detriment to the people it's representing then I think the answer is obviously yes.
From a legal standpoint, I don't know, but if the answer is a no then that's a problem with the legal system more than anything.
Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Foreign interference is a big deal and shouldn't be overlooked. But I just don't think its plausible that the identified Russian activities swung the election. The Russian fake news trolls were a drop in the ocean of social media/news. The russia spend on facebook was 0.05 percent of the candidates (not even going to mention the free posting by individual supporters). FB estimated that 1 out of ~20 thousand pieces of…
Asking whether they "swung" the election is an unnecessarily high bar. The question is whether they influenced the election, and the answer is a pretty clear yes. Russian hacks of the DNC and John Podesta, and the ensuing leaks, drove front-page headlines and cable news coverage for weeks in aggregate, if not more.
The DNC came out with the story about the Russian hack very quickly; they can't possibly have known it was them with any accuracy.
It could easily have been a leak, and the Russia story was simply to deflect from the content of the leak.
Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil
#56There is a disturbing level of pro Bolsonaro astroturfing going on in here. Don't be deceived, Greenwald is a political prisoner.
> Don't be deceived, Greenwald is a political prisoner.
He's not arrested, nor his passport.
Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is something journalists do all the time. If a source comes to you, even with illegally obtained materials, it is normal for a journalist to ask for more, that's their job.
Well, that's something that we need to think about: should we allow journalists to be free of charged when they know they sources is actively hacking someone to get those content? I truly don't have an answer, but I think this ethical question must be done.
> should we allow journalists to be free of charged when they know they sources is actively hacking someone to get those content?
Should journalists be free of charge when they know the source is breaking the Espionage Act? New York Times v United States (1971) says "yes"
Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Foreign interference is a big deal and shouldn't be overlooked. But I just don't think its plausible that the identified Russian activities swung the election. The Russian fake news trolls were a drop in the ocean of social media/news. The russia spend on facebook was 0.05 percent of the candidates (not even going to mention the free posting by individual supporters). FB estimated that 1 out of ~20 thousand pieces of…
Asking whether they "swung" the election is an unnecessarily high bar. The question is whether they influenced the election, and the answer is a pretty clear yes. Russian hacks of the DNC and John Podesta, and the ensuing leaks, drove front-page headlines and cable news coverage for weeks in aggregate, if not more.
So is it the Russians or the media reaction that made the difference? If I recall correctly one of Greenwald's main theses is that click-thirsty coverage of exciting-sounding stories overwhelmed more substantial topics in the 2016 election.
Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil
#59There is a disturbing level of pro Bolsonaro astroturfing going on in here. Don't be deceived, Greenwald is a political prisoner.
To be political prisoner you need to be in prison first.
This might be a political persecution, but saying he is a political prisoner is a bit of stretch.
It will take several years for his case to be appreciate by every last instance (in Brazil we have 3 instances). Even if he is found guilty, he won't be sentenced to jail.
Re: Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's possible for the Russians to be actively involved in trying to get Trump elected and for Russian interference to have nothing to do with the results of the last election. The conclusion would simply be that the Russians sucked at their election meddling, or more neutrally, that foreign interference is dwarfed by the independent effect of charisma on 200M American voters.
When elections are this close, it's impossible to say that any one factor had "nothing to do" with the outcome. It was clear this was going to be a problem after the 2000 Presidential election came down to a few semi-literate Floridians. One definition of "chaos" is a system involving large numbers with sensitive dependence on very small margins, and that's what we have here. Edit: Well, I guess we're still hearing f…
> When elections are this close, it's impossible to say that any one factor had "nothing to do" with the outcome.
Technically, it's incredibly easy to "say" whether any one factor had nothing to do with the outcome - in fact, this seems to be the overwhelmingly normal behavior of individuals, the media, and government officials.
What's impossible is to know whether any one factor had nothing to do with the outcome. More interestingly, it also seems nigh impossible for people on either side of the dispute to simply acknowledge that great certainty exists everywhere within the complexity of life, that we simply do not know what has taken place in this situation, or in the thousands of others that people argue about, with many of these arguments having a lifespan of decades if not longer.
It may seem like a trite idea, but I believe that if we could have more widespread realization and acceptance of this fundamental truth, perhaps we could move beyond this increasingly deep rut of partisan bickering we seem to find ourselves in.