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

201–210 of 299 posts

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#201

Post by sangnoir »

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…

> If Wikileaks treats all leaks as equal then I don't see how this argument holds water.

It turns out Wikileaks does care about the source https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#202

Post by avs733 »

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…

This is really interesting to me because of the way the information age seems to have collapsed claims and evidence into one another. I was actually recently discussing this with a friend and we formulates three rules:

1) Claims of neutrality are evidence against being neutral

2) performance of neutrality is evidence of neutrality

3) blind adherence to neutrality is evidence of not understanding the goals of neutrality

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#203

Post by belorn »

woodruffw wrote: post #105
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…

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 two main releases of documents by wikileaks, one being the center of the extradition case currently being conducted by the United state, involve raw data from the military involved in military actions, and raw data from diplomats.

Processed into intelligence it was not. The video from the helicopter strike was technically processed, but by no stretch of the imagination was it intelligence that an American airstrikes hit two journalists and family with young children.

Out of the leaks listed on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Leaks), how many of those can honestly be classified as processed intelligence by a hostile power, under the guise of an ideology of totally free data?

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#204

Post by jessaustin »

closeparen wrote: post #179
erdos4d wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

A protest is ordinarily not a story.

Over the last month we've seen the strongest proof of this that one could imagine. In India, 250 million farmers and associated union members went on strike. Somehow this event went completely unreported by USA journalists. In nations where the USA "defense" department could conceivably waste more money, the threshold is considerably lower than 250M... more like, say, ten? Twenty? Possibly a hundred protesters in Syria or Hong Kong would be worth a report.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#205

Post by 13415 »

avs733 wrote: post #202
kjaftaedi wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This is really interesting to me because of the way the information age seems to have collapsed claims and evidence into one another. I was actually recently discussing this with a friend and we formulates three rules: 1) Claims of neutrality are evidence against being neutral 2) performance of neutrality is evidence of neutrality 3) blind adherence to neutrality is evidence of not understanding the goals of neutrali…

I think you could just have one rule instead, which is also taught to beginning journalists if I'm not mistaken:

Everybody is biased. Always.

There are no exceptions to this rule.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#207

Post by seppin »

drewblaisdell wrote: post #167
seppin wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> the US largely ended it's support of anti-democratic forces post-cold war Except in Venezuela, Bolivia, the Middle East...

> Venezuela

Specifically voiced support for the pro-democratic opposition leader that arguably won the election.

> the Middle East

Supported democratic reforms in Egypt against a long time pro-US dictator in Mubarak. Supported Syria's right to self-determination to the point of fighting with FSA for years.

> Bolivia

Bolivia is an interesting case, the opposition claimed fraud but i've seen no evidence of it. A black eye for sure to come down against the results of their election without proof.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#208

Post by seppin »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #194
seppin wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

>julian assange had a TV show on RT, what more do you need?) I love this argument as it turns both Larry King and Jesse Ventura into Kremlin agents.

No he is a Kremlin agent for using his once storied organization for espionage. The RT job was to point out the obvious relationship between himself and Russian propaganda efforts going back decades.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#209

Post by seppin »

roenxi wrote: post #186
seppin wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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

Yes, which makes them an opposition intelligence organization. Like I said.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#210

Post by stale2002 »

mhh__ wrote: post #41
pydry wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's more journalist than most. Reprinting Twitter spats and press releases does not make you a journalist. Publishing newsworthy information in the public interest does.

If you have an explicitly political motivation to all your reporting and what you choose to print does that make you any better?

> does that make you any better

Yes. Because at least you are publishing new information. And then then people can decide for themselves how to interpret it.

Post reply on HN