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

151–160 of 299 posts

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#151

Post by seppin »

rmrfstar wrote: post #120
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…

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?

> Who did more harm to "liberal democracy", J. Edgar Hoover (who tried to extort MLK into suicide), or KGB?

I get this is supposed to be a debate, but the FBI never rolled tanks into Poland or Czechoslovakia. The FBI never annexed the peninsula of a foreign country, then set up fraud elections to make it look organic.

Most importantly, the US largely ended it's support of anti-democratic forces post-cold war. The KGB has no such intention.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#152

Post by seppin »

rmrfstar wrote: post #124
woodruffw wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> The way DHS and local police specifically targeted journalists?

How many of them were killed/disappeared? If you can't cite a number in the hundreds (or even one case), your comparison is false.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#153

Post by seppin »

whatshisface wrote: post #103
thatfunkymunki wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't their editorial control over what they publish/don't publish push them further into intelligence agency territory?

Only insofar as the Guardian's editorial control over the whistleblowing they publish pushes them into intelligence agency territory.

If the Guardian were caught laundering Russian-hacked materials to attack an American election, then yes. Otherwise, no.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#154

Post by erentz »

e40 wrote: post #145
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…

What is not equal is the asymmetry of the information. In 2016 (2015?) the information was skewed to that provided by Russian intelligence. If there were equal amounts of dirt on every politician, then fine, but there is clearly not. This is what bothers me about the whole thing. It can be manipulated by powerful states, and some of them are more willing to use it than others.

I would like to see the dirt on every politician also. But I'm not going to complain because I can only see the dirt on some of them. And if Wikileaks received information about Politician D and did not publish it because they did not have equal information about Politician R to release at the same time then they would be taking an editorial bias in favor of D. Now if you show that Wikileaks sat on information about R, then there is something serious to point at. Until then, to me it sounds like everyone who complains about this is really just upset that their preferred politicians dirt was exposed and they think they should be allowed to get away with it.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#155

Post by seppin »

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.

> no bad press

Not bad press. The stolen materials of a state-sponsored attack released at the precise time it would do the most damage. And people are claiming with a straight face this was a coincidence and Wikileaks wasn't working with Russian intelligence, against the American democratic party.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#157

Post by onepointsixC »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #148
shadowgovt wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Manning leaks were hugely irresponsible. While whistleblowing is a vital activity, the data dumps Manning pulled from the military network and State Department were unredacted raw dumps. They catalyzed Arab Spring by pushing the delicate realm of international diplomacy into the eyes of the public, leading to hundreds of deaths and, fundamentally, no real change. Possibly setting back democracy in the Middle East…

> The Manning leaks were hugely irresponsible. While whistleblowing is a vital activity, the data dumps Manning pulled from the military network and State Department were unredacted raw dumps. WikiLeaks tried to get the Pentagon to help them redact documents[1]. They refused to do so knowing there would be people like you accusing WikiLeaks/Manning of wrongdoing here. > I like Manning as a person, but state secrets e…

>You do realize she shed light on war crimes right? Do you consider war crimes 'state secrets' that 'exist for a reason'?

What warcrimes? Please be specific. Because if you're talking about that Helicopter gunship video, that was not a warcrime, and was selectively edited by Wikileaks to try to make it look worse. All of which made Wikileak's claims far more dubious.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#158

Post by secfirstmd »

roywiggins wrote: post #83
flotzam wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

‘Later I realized that the border police uncle did not even listen to my answers, sometimes repeated question1 after answering question3. Turned out to be a delay tactic until green light on the screen; propably “team to follow me through my stay” was ready :/’ (page 11)

They ask these questions routinely and they're not particularly interested in the answer. They're interested in whether you can answer them fluently without stumbling or sounding evasive. Whether they were used as a delay tactic in this case, I couldn't say. Surely they could just leave you waiting while they "looked something up" or "waited for the computer system"? It's not like you have any choice but to wait.

Also it gives time for various IMSI and surveillance related tools to function.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#159

Post by throwaway0a5e »

tremon wrote: post #119
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…

chiefly benefits powers whose long term vision is the decline of liberal democracy. ...by exposing the hypocrisy of said liberal democracies. What good is a liberal democracy when the demos remains oblivious of the negative aspects what the cracy is doing? If things like the collateral murder videos, or the treatment of Manning and Snowden are the work of said "liberal democracies", then I'm fully in the camp that wa…

"Hurr durr America bad" is the standard trope on Reddit.

Most people on HN are pretty well informed of the less than nice things the .gov has done over they years even if they bury their heads in the sand when advocating for expansion of government scope on .

And the right has their own laundry list of reasons the government is not to be trusted. Those people have nearly zero trust for pretty much any gun-toting federal agency.

I wouldn't say that people are "oblivious". I'd say that people are divided on how to fix the issues.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#160

Post by AsyncAwait »

onepointsixC wrote: post #157
AsyncAwait wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Manning leaks were hugely irresponsible. While whistleblowing is a vital activity, the data dumps Manning pulled from the military network and State Department were unredacted raw dumps. WikiLeaks tried to get the Pentagon to help them redact documents[1]. They refused to do so knowing there would be people like you accusing WikiLeaks/Manning of wrongdoing here. > I like Manning as a person, but state secrets e…

>You do realize she shed light on war crimes right? Do you consider war crimes 'state secrets' that 'exist for a reason'? What warcrimes? Please be specific. Because if you're talking about that Helicopter gunship video, that was not a warcrime, and was selectively edited by Wikileaks to try to make it look worse. All of which made Wikileak's claims far more dubious.

> Because if you're talking about that Helicopter gunship video, that was not a warcrime

Since when is killing journalists not a warcrime?

Post reply on HN