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

CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

media.ccc.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 299 posts

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#131

Post by woodruffw »

NOGDP wrote: post #130
woodruffw wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm normally loathe to defend any aspect of the US MIC, but I think Pompeo's point is that Wikileaks knowingly publicizes information that has already been processed into Intelligence , and willfully turns a blind eye to its role as a laundromat for hostile powers under the guise of an ideology of totally free data. I, for one, think that all information should be free. I think Pompeo's motivations are suspect and ge…

'I think all information should be free. Except anything that could be damaging to CIA, NSA, US government. And only approved actors can release this information. Because uhhh, democracy.' Okay bud.

Please read the sibling comments. I'm more than happy to see information about the US's disastrous and criminal programs exposed. But that doesn't mean that I uncritically accept that an unbiased source does itself have unbiased sources.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#132

Post by vbtemp »

Honest question, please don't snipe at me. Can someone please point me to significant leaks from out of china, russia, iran on wikileaks?

Edit: since it appears no one can actually answer this question with an actual answer, and only down vote and troll, I think that probably means wikileaks does not make significant leaks from the military-industrial complexes of China or Russia.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#133

Post by jjk166 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #108
whatshisface wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People keep saying this, but never include the story. What's the meat behind the claim that they did this?

The New York Times did reporting on the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Clinton emails that suggested the timing indicated political motivation. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed...

I honestly don't get why people act like there is or ought to be some gentleman's agreement that no bad press should come out about a candidate shortly before an election. The final lead up to the election has traditionally been the time of most intense scrutiny, and if someone has dirty laundry, it really should be aired before they've been elected to a position of power.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#134

Post by medicineman »

vbtemp wrote: post #132

Honest question, please don't snipe at me. Can someone please point me to significant leaks from out of china, russia, iran on wikileaks? Edit: since it appears no one can actually answer this question with an actual answer, and only down vote and troll, I think that probably means wikileaks does not make significant leaks from the military-industrial complexes of China or Russia.

[flagged]

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#135

Post by praptak »

woodruffw wrote: post #121
rmrfstar wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary threat to "liberal democracy" is CIA, DHS, MI5, and MI6. It is not SVR or MSS. This has been true since the Cold War. Who did more harm to "liberal democracy", J. Edgar Hoover (who tried to extort MLK into suicide), or KGB?

I'm not going to play the historical game of who-did-what-is-worse. Hoover was a criminal, and the US MIC/IC has a long history of committing domestic and international atrocities. But, on the long tail of things, I'd rather be subjected to the US legal (and extralegal) system than the Russian legal system. I have more confidence that the former offers just recourse, even if it takes a generation or two.

> "I'd rather be subjected to the US legal (and extralegal) system than the Russian legal system"

No contest but I think GP point was not about the absolute quality of democracy right now but rather about which power did more to destroy democracy in the recent years.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#136

Post by throwaway829 »

vbtemp wrote: post #132

Honest question, please don't snipe at me. Can someone please point me to significant leaks from out of china, russia, iran on wikileaks? Edit: since it appears no one can actually answer this question with an actual answer, and only down vote and troll, I think that probably means wikileaks does not make significant leaks from the military-industrial complexes of China or Russia.

Julian Assange's Mandarin, Russian & Persian comprehension skills probably aren't up for the task. And copying and pasting leaks in Google Translate probably wouldn't work either.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#137

Post by h0h0h0h0111 »

woodruffw wrote: post #127
rmrfstar wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about this summer? The way DHS and local police specifically targeted journalists? That's way more harmful to "liberal democracy" than some foreign sock puppet dumping evidence of high-level corruption.

I agree completely. I look forward to more leaks that discredit and diminish the DHS and law enforcement. But that doesn't mean that I trust Wikileaks to adequately balance the motivations and lensing of its sources with its mission of absolute transparency.

I'm not sure that I trust Wikileaks on that either, but I don't trust the powers that be to adequately balance such motivations either, and ultimately I'd rather Wikileaks released information in dubious faith than not at all.

At least with information in the open, people can attempt to grok the full picture for themselves.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#138

Post by h0h0h0h0111 »

jjk166 wrote: post #133
shadowgovt wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The New York Times did reporting on the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Clinton emails that suggested the timing indicated political motivation. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed...

I honestly don't get why people act like there is or ought to be some gentleman's agreement that no bad press should come out about a candidate shortly before an election. The final lead up to the election has traditionally been the time of most intense scrutiny, and if someone has dirty laundry, it really should be aired before they've been elected to a position of power.

Indeed - surely the best time to have a full picture of a candidate is right before they go to the polls?!

Also not to be a whataboutist (I didn't have a horse in the race), but plenty of other dirt was released on other candidates in the run-up to the election, and I didn't see the Clinton campaign condemning the timing of its release...

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#139

Post by Kalium »

tehjoker wrote: post #117
Kalium wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're absolutely right, it doesn't seem difficult at all. That said, have you ever had stage fright? It's pretty common. Practice often seems to melt away when an actual performance is at hand. With that in mind, it's perhaps not unreasonable to think that this particular bar - quite low as you rightly and wisely point out it seems to be - will trip up no few liars at scale.

If you've ever been low on coffee and have a brain fart you get harassed too.

YMMV. It's been my experience that customs agents the world over are accustomed to dealing with very tired people.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#140

Post by NOGDP »

woodruffw wrote: post #131
NOGDP wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'I think all information should be free. Except anything that could be damaging to CIA, NSA, US government. And only approved actors can release this information. Because uhhh, democracy.' Okay bud.

Please read the sibling comments. I'm more than happy to see information about the US's disastrous and criminal programs exposed. But that doesn't mean that I uncritically accept that an unbiased source does itself have unbiased sources.

Except you're spreading FUD about a huge trove of information without any specific reference to how or why the information is suspect. The only actual reasons you mention as to why this information is untrustworthy is that it's hurtful to US government agencies.
Post reply on HN