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

251–260 of 299 posts

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#251

Post by scoot_718 »

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…

They obviously don't treat all leaks as equal. Just look at the official wikileaks twitter to see their bias.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#252

Post by scoot_718 »

sangnoir wrote: post #201
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…

> 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...

That looks more like Wikileaks cares about who it is damaging to.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#253

Post by scoot_718 »

whatshisface wrote: post #104
cochne wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the true narrative is probably somewhere in the middle of those. Did WikiLeaks not strategically publish information for their desired political outcome?

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

They were very open about their desired outcomes alongside their releases. They had the express goal of affecting the election, as expressed by their site and their twitter.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#254

Post by scoot_718 »

bitcharmer wrote: post #125
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...

The problem I have with this accusation is that it works either way. Had they published after the elections they would have been called a secret Clinton ally. There is always some group to gain/loose politically from exposing documents like that regardless of the timing.

They literally tweeted that their goal was to fuck her over.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#255

Post by harry8 »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #248
harry8 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Absolutely not. The incredulity is 100% genuine. Just seeing how everyone reacts looking at and seeing how absolutely fucking insane it is to have the FBI and their powers in a building named "J Edgar Hoover" Someone said the fbi reformed since those days of criminality. Why would anyone believe that while they continue to celebrate J Edgar Hoover. While they go to work to protect the rule of law to a building na…

I'm right there with you dude. Every time they tear down some Confederate statue or take George Washington's name off of a school I'm just, "Dulles Airport is right over there! And he only lived 60 goddamn years ago!"

But it's not just a name. It's not just a statue. It's not purely symbolic.

It is who and what the FBI are! Take them at their word when they tell us this! It's so much worse than any symbol. They are out there doing their J Edgar Hoover thing with the force of law behind them! And rubbing our noses in it.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#256

Post by belorn »

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.

> there were equal amounts of dirt on every politician, then fine, but there is clearly not.

If we are talking about the 2016 election then there is actually data on how much dirt was being thrown around. Looking at all the scandals being printed in news papers, with the big ones being the email scandals for Clinton and audio tapes for trump, the data as presented in a research paper was that the intensity of scandal articles was higher for Trump, but the duration of articles was higher for Clinton. Trump scandals got focused in the news during the last month of the election, while the Clinton scandals had been published on and off for almost a half year. In total, articles writing about scandals was around 3-4 times more in total for Clinton and distributed over a half year, than those of trump which was distributed over the last month of the election.

The general conclusion I got from that research is that dirt that can be dripped over a long period has a better chance to stick than a louder but shorter lived dirt. It also makes comparing one kind of dirt to an other difficult. This lesson seems to have been taken in by heart in the Snowden leaks and panamaleaks, both which stretched out their leaks for months.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#257

Post by JohnStrangeII »

avs733 wrote: post #229
13415 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But this is not about bias...it’s about representation of your actions.

There are no neutral actions, though.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#258

Post by bitcharmer »

scoot_718 wrote: post #254
bitcharmer wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I have with this accusation is that it works either way. Had they published after the elections they would have been called a secret Clinton ally. There is always some group to gain/loose politically from exposing documents like that regardless of the timing.

They literally tweeted that their goal was to fuck her over.

This statement could definitely use a source

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#259

Post by trevelyan »

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…

US government documents are public. You can legally publish and discuss them. No-one has a legal obligation to secrecy unless they sign it away as part of an employment contract with the government.

Thus the attempts to nail Assange for conspiracy, something that is self-evident nonsense given the Adrian Lamo chat logs published by Wired show Manning contacting Assange with express intent to leak.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#260

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

h0h0h0h0111 wrote: post #137
woodruffw wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have to trust that all the information actually IS in the open though.

Wikileaks can't guarantee that.

Post reply on HN