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

181–190 of 299 posts

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#181

Post by shadowgovt »

px43 wrote: post #126
shadowgovt wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wikileaks had an image of a Bank of America VP laptop with email discussion about the creation and exploitation of predatory loans, and a complete indifference to the eventual 2008 crash that they knew it would cause. How do we know this is true if the data was burned?

> How do we know this is true if the data was burned? Sadly we don't, and likely never will. Assange mentioned the laptop data and hinted at what it might contain in an interview. We do definitely know that a large cache of data got held hostage and eventually burned when fuckhead left. Like I mentioned before, there was a whole Benedict Cumberbartch movie made about the fallout there: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt18…

I wouldn't take either the word of one of the parties with obvious bias or a dramatization of events that was primarily sourced to the person with obvious bias at face value on a topic this controversial.

Proof or it didn't happen.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#182

Post by shadowgovt »

13415 wrote: post #128
shadowgovt wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistically speaking, they are after hardly anyone. But they have an obvious vested interest in having sufficient data to track the motions of anyone, because they can't know a-priori who is involved in an activity harmful to the interests of the United States of America until they have evidence an activity has happened or will happen and need to begin connecting the dots to identify the pattern. You can't connect…

Talking about "connecting the dots" is a bit naive in this context, though. The NSA has been pursuing what they called a "total information awareness" program since the late 90s / early 2000s. The goal is to collect all digital data about all of the world citizens, so it can be used later in case that's deemed "necessary" for "national security." Basically like Facebook+Google, plus geolocation and mobile phone data…

I don't think it's naive; I think you have correctly interpreted their goals and the ends those goals are structured to achieve.

Total information awareness, to be used in circumstances where it's necessary for national security. Pull the scare quotes off and it's directly in line with the NSA's mission "to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#183

Post by roenxi »

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.

I think the gentlemen's agreement would be to give a fair amount of time to rebuff. If someone says something that isn't true it takes time to respond because (1) the responder doesn't know what was claimed since it is a fabrication and (2) responder can't necessarily grasp the damage or interpretation of the claim until some polling data comes in.

Smears unleashed in the last week of the campaign are a bit below the belt. Doubt that is ever going to stop anyone though.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#184

Post by kjaftaedi »

dmix wrote: post #129
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…

If Wikileaks treats all leaks as equal then I don't see how this argument holds water. Where else are we going to get insight into the globbal power "underworld", which the intelligence community just happens to always have a finger in? Anonymous sources feeding into New York Times? Because that's all we had before and continue to have today otherwise. People just don't like when certain inconvenient information come…

>The fact this sometimes can have an 'agenda' or be exploited by the original sources will never negate the value of a neutral 3rd party..

I agree with your sentiment, but we are all aware of the role WL had in the 2016 election. And in chats Assange was found to have said, “We believe it would be much better for GOP to win,” .. and then he continued to play the Seth Rich conspiracy angle until finally distancing from it.

Under scrutiny, the agenda is not as neutral as one would like, and the consequences of this lack of neutrality are massive.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#185

Post by Pokepokalypse »

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…

Wikileaks stated mission was to "make secrecy expensive" (ie. so unweildy with rules and procedures to ensure secrecy, that even those with very deep pockets could not maintain it) - it was meant to democratize information - all information. Whether it was dangerous or not.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#186

Post by roenxi »

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?)

One of Wikileak's overt and major goals is to expose CIA secrets. The two are in direct opposition.

The CIA are known to be professional bad-faith liers (eg, [0]). It is quite possible they are lieing for political purposes. Their opinion on Wikileaks is not remotely authoritative.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIA_controversies#Cove...

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#187

Post by shadowgovt »

briantakita wrote: post #165
shadowgovt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democratic elections are how we choose between the candidates sponsored by the parties. Hypothetically, there's nothing actually stopping those elections from choosing someone outside the party, but when we're talking in election over a population of 350 million people, even getting an individual's name in front of the voters such that they think to write them in requires a level of organization on par with a nationa…

Given the obvious election fraud caught on camera, forensic evidence, voter roll issues, intimidation of poll watchers, lack of transparency, & the lack actionable oversight that we saw in the 2020 election, is there any hope to reform the corrupt political system or even to ascertain "the consent of the governed"? If you add a backstop against political outsiers gaining office, only insiders who are under control of…

> is there any hope to reform the corrupt political system or even to ascertain "the consent of the governed"?

A shared interpretation of reality would be a good start. Most of the things you named in your first sentence happened at such low counts that they had functionally zero impact on the outcome of the election. For starters, there has been no instance of obvious election fraud caught on camera, no forensic evidence that has gone unchallenged, voter roll issues, while chronic, were being addressed for years leading up to the election, intimidation of poll watchers was in the eye of the beholder, and transparency was extraordinary (they had counts live-streamed). Actionable oversight also exists, but excludes "tossing the entire result of a state election," for obvious reasons (most of the actionable oversight is of the form "Screwing with elections is a federal crime and you do a lot of time for it").

There was a commission to look into instances of fraud in the 2016 election, and it concluded in 2018 that there were a handful of actionable events but the end result was the outcome was unchanged. The 2020 election's results were even wider than the difference in the 2016 outcome. It may not be unwise to appoint a commission to investigate the election results, but my money's personally on an outcome in 2022 similar to the outcome in 2018.

(... and Carlin was a great entertainer but not a political scientist).

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#188

Post by [deleted] »

seppin wrote: post #151
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?

> 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…

[deleted]

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#189

Post by harry8 »

woodruffw wrote: post #180
harry8 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 h…

So you're saying the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a criminal organisation that does not respect the rule of law and indeed brazenly celebrates that in public in a way nobody could miss by making sure a criminal is its most famous ever employee?

And this doesn't come up in every single news article about the FBI? This doesn't come up to discredit every single piece of FBI evidence in court?

I would believe that kind of thing about the Soviet Union. Or some other dictatorship. And this is happening, right now, in the USA, largely ignored by media, by politicians, by courts, with massive BLM protests, you say?

>Many Americans do hate him.

Many Americans believe the world is flat. Tragically what "Many Americans" believe means nothing about credibility.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#190

Post by [deleted] »

kjaftaedi wrote: post #184
dmix wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Wikileaks treats all leaks as equal then I don't see how this argument holds water. Where else are we going to get insight into the globbal power "underworld", which the intelligence community just happens to always have a finger in? Anonymous sources feeding into New York Times? Because that's all we had before and continue to have today otherwise. People just don't like when certain inconvenient information come…

> The fact this sometimes can have an 'agenda' or be exploited by the original sources will never negate the value of a neutral 3rd party.. I agree with your sentiment, but we are all aware of the role WL had in the 2016 election. And in chats Assange was found to have said, “We believe it would be much better for GOP to win,” .. and then he continued to play the Seth Rich conspiracy angle until finally distancing fr…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN