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

171–180 of 299 posts

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#171

Post by friendlybus »

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.

Yeah there's a couple in this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_material_published_by_...

Tibetan dissent in china, russians spying on their own people, ect. There's a few entries that contain multiple countries. I only skimmed the list.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#172

Post by tyingq »

jimmyswimmy wrote: post #170
tyingq wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, thanks. Though the slides talk about, for example, the Spartan 6, which is on the larger board and seems factory looking. That white connector on the little tap board appears to plug into J4 on this board: http://buggedplanet.info/lost+found/20180323/Images/18.jpg So that larger board would have to be part of the conspiracy. It's the one with the 2 FPGAs, NAND memory, board trace antenna, etc. That board is obvio…

Such a chip would enable the phone to act as a base station for a wireless headset. Snom make several varieties of such headsets. It is not necessarily proof of a "bug," could just be additional, perhaps never implemented, functionality for the phone.

DECT is ~1800MHz, Bluetooth is 2450MHz and this model doesn't have any sort of built in wireless.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#173

Post by viro »

powerapple wrote: post #7

I am afraid the real world journalists don't care too much about Wikileak. I am afraid that's how I feel this way. To me, Wikileak is the real meat journalists, no speculation, no opinion, just information, data for people to process. But we don't want it, we want to read tldr;, one sentence is something I am interested to read about a topic. Journalists know that, they rather publish unchecked facts, as long as it g…

Data is useless without context. If you don't understand what you're looking at. Its more like to do harm than good. Like how all those maga people watched people counting votes. They didn't understand how the process worked so they thought every little thing was election fraud.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#174

Post by stunt »

seppin wrote: post #149
for_i_in_range wrote: post #99

He makes an important point early on in outlining the mission of Wikileaks centering on making Data and Information freely accessible to all (the concept of Dataism, for those who have read Yuval Harrari’s HOMO DEUS ). However, the processing of Information into Intelligence that can be acted upon is what characterizes Intelligence agencies. Wikileaks does not concern itself with this phase. Yet, the CIA’s Pompeo is…

The CIA recognizes Wikileaks as an arm of Kremlin information warfare. Western leftists are all too willing to help Wikileaks deflect from that obvious classification. (julian assange had a TV show on RT, what more do you need?)

> Recognizing Wikileaks as an arm of Kremlin information warfare

Isn't that the same strategy that countries like Iran, Russia, and China have against their whistleblowers? And isn't that the exact behavior that we always blame and condemn? We have human rights sanctions against Iran for punishing journalists.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#175

Post by harry8 »

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.

>Hoover was a criminal

Are you really saying that the FBI has and continues to celebrate a criminal [1] and their own criminal behaviour as most exemplary? For nearly half a century now? And no bi-partisan political rebuke? And are not treated with total contempt by every adult in the USA and every court in the world?

How is that remotely possible? Surely this is a conspiracy theory?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover_Building

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#176

Post by shadowgovt »

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…

The military leaks did shed light on (possible; there is dispute in the international community) war crimes, and had Manning only leaked those specific videos, my opinion would be very different.

The State Department cable leaks were grossly irresponsible, as were most of the rest of the military intel leaks. She slurped and dumped without understanding of the ramifications of divulging all that information, which can endanger her fellow soldiers in the field, who had not committed war crimes. That she appears to have gotten lucky and it did not, in fact, endanger soldiers in the field is irrelevant to the reason such a slurp-and-dump is a court-martial offense.

I think reasonable people can disagree on whether, in aggregate, she did more harm than good. She shed light on (what we would want to be) senseless deaths of several civilians in a military theater, and separate from that, she catalyzed multiple revolutions resulting in the deaths of hundreds.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#177

Post by roywiggins »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #89
roywiggins wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no doubt MI5 could be involved, but it's not very strong evidence on its own, is it?

He also doesn't claim that it's strong evidence on its own . That uncertainty is actually part of what the talk is about. The evidence must be taken in combination with other issues, e.g. his claim that the Brits do not even try to hide their surveillance (and therefore have been photographed) and the sophisticated surveillance device he found in his crypto phone.

I guess, but if they needed a ruse to delay someone at immigration it'd be much simpler to just say that the computer was slow or something. No playacting required.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#178

Post by shadowgovt »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #160
onepointsixC wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Wikipedia gives a pretty good summary of how one arrives at that conclusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri... --- the short form is that the laws around war crimes give broad leeway to soldiers in the field interpreting a situation on the ground, and from the point of view of the gunship, they may have believed they were firing on attackers attempting to reach RPGs in the vehicle. This is one of the tragedies of modern insurgency warfare... Since nobody's in uniform, how can one be sure that the person in civilian clothing crawling through the operation is trying to escape or going for a concealed weapon?

I'm personally inclined to agree with Mark Taylor that "...what this video shows is really a case that challenges whether the laws of war are strict enough."

Within the US, there is a similar broad cultural argument ongoing on whether laws protecting police officers err too far on the side of assuming the cops' in-the-field interpretation of what happened should guide how the law understands what happened.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#179

Post by closeparen »

erdos4d wrote: post #106
Fnoord wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe a better question to ask yourself in such a situation is "Are you ready to avoid senseless violence?" ie. "is this worth it?" I don't believe is worth fighting police during a demonstration. I'm biased, sure, but still if you are in such situation you need to stop for a moment and think about such questions. Whenever I went to demonstrations -and, granted, its been a while since War in Iraq started- I made…

> I don't believe is worth fighting police during a demonstration. As many protesters will tell you, in a lot of cases the police start the fight. Are you saying you're okay with them being able to just silence you? What do you propose doing when they use violence to shut down your protest?

>them being able to just silence you

A protest is ordinarily not a story. The police suppressing a protest is a story. Protestors understand this, and there's a whole romanticism around getting arrested on camera.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#180

Post by woodruffw »

harry8 wrote: post #175
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.

>Hoover was a criminal Are you really saying that the FBI has and continues to celebrate a criminal [1] and their own criminal behaviour as most exemplary? For nearly half a century now? And no bi-partisan political rebuke? And are not treated with total contempt by every adult in the USA and every court in the world? How is that remotely possible? Surely this is a conspiracy theory? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J…

Yes. Hoover was a criminal in the literal sense of the word: he repeatedly and brazenly violated US laws, and fostered a culture of illegality in the FBI. His crimes are well attested by both his own records and the official records of the FBI. The FBI is a law enforcement organization; anybody who knows this history of LEOs in the US shouldn't be particularly surprised that they defend their own.

Many Americans do hate him. But it's important to note that Hoover's criminality did not extend to the average White American: his efforts focused on Black Americans, gays, and anybody sufficiently "radical" by the standards of cold war America.

Ronald Reagan also has buildings named after him, mind you.

Post reply on HN