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

291–299 of 299 posts

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#291

Post by zimbatm »

At the end he is asking what he can do about it, to stop the surveillance. I didn't feel like he really got an answer for that unfortunately. Living like that must be like hell.

Maybe the best option is total transparency. There people operate in a shadowy world. If you take photos of the people following you and post them publicly, that might burn their agents and make the operation more expensive. People in that field probably don't want to end-up on the internet and be linked with image reverse search. Plus it acts as documentation.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#292

Post by seppin »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #290
seppin wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And they are free to coordinate with a political campaign, they have the freedom of assembly as well as of the press. lol. "None of these things are crimes" is not the solid argument you think it is. To be a useful idiot aiding an autocratic government in their intelligence operations might not be technically illegal, but you give up all pretense of being "journalists" when you do so. > His discussions about Wikile…

>but you give up all pretense of being "journalists" when you do so I do not have any idea what you consider to be journalism. Why would being a useful idiot make publishing politically relevant information eliminate your pretense of being a "journalist?" >Again, not what we are talking about. Then explain how Stone's indictment for spying is in anyway relevant to our discussion? I assumed you brought it up to claim…

> I do not have any idea what you consider to be journalism

Not being part of an information warfare campaign of an autocratic country's intelligence service, as we have definitive proof Wikileaks was. The fact that you keep saying this is fine and totally par for the course (also weirdly repeating that the DNC's personal correspondence about ordering pizza and shit-talking each other is 'politically relevant') makes me think you are either far too partisan in your admiration of Assange to discuss this objectively or you just don't understand what the journalism industry is. I don't really care which is true at this point.

You are also misrepresenting what Zaid has said, repeatedly. Being a whistleblower is not an easy thing and not without consequences, but Snowden didn't even attempt to become one. Which is why referring to him as such is misleading at best, and cynically misrepresenting what happened for ideological reasons at worst.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#293

Post by seppin »

michaelmrose wrote: post #199
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 American KGB is called the CIA. The FBIs purview is domestic affairs.

I'm aware, OP compared the two

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#294

Post by boomboomsubban »

seppin wrote: post #292
boomboomsubban wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but you give up all pretense of being "journalists" when you do so I do not have any idea what you consider to be journalism. Why would being a useful idiot make publishing politically relevant information eliminate your pretense of being a "journalist?" >Again, not what we are talking about. Then explain how Stone's indictment for spying is in anyway relevant to our discussion? I assumed you brought it up to claim…

> I do not have any idea what you consider to be journalism Not being part of an information warfare campaign of an autocratic country's intelligence service, as we have definitive proof Wikileaks was. The fact that you keep saying this is fine and totally par for the course (also weirdly repeating that the DNC's personal correspondence about ordering pizza and shit-talking each other is 'politically relevant') makes…

>Not being part of an information warfare campaign of an autocratic country's intelligence service, as we have definitive proof Wikileaks was

So because a foreign intelligence group took advantage of a "useful idiot" they aren't journalists? Their actions don't matter? Do you feel the same towards writers being used by the CIA to spread their stories?

I fully admit that some editing of the leaks would have been preferred, but I can also see how that would be difficult in their position and it would be used to cast further doubt upon them. Publishing them as is still qualifies as journalism.

Oh, and I personally find Assange to be an abhorrent person. He's egotistical, racist, and much of those sexual assault claims seem likely. His right to a free press still should not be trampled.

>You are also misrepresenting what Zaid has said, repeatedly.

By directly quoting him while providing the context? Maybe he's right and some set of actions could have put Snowden in a better position today. As things stand, Snowden would not receive a fair trial, as Assange is not.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#295

Post by seppin »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #294
seppin wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not have any idea what you consider to be journalism Not being part of an information warfare campaign of an autocratic country's intelligence service, as we have definitive proof Wikileaks was. The fact that you keep saying this is fine and totally par for the course (also weirdly repeating that the DNC's personal correspondence about ordering pizza and shit-talking each other is 'politically relevant') makes…

>Not being part of an information warfare campaign of an autocratic country's intelligence service, as we have definitive proof Wikileaks was So because a foreign intelligence group took advantage of a "useful idiot" they aren't journalists? Their actions don't matter? Do you feel the same towards writers being used by the CIA to spread their stories? I fully admit that some editing of the leaks would have been prefe…

> Do you feel the same towards writers being used by the CIA to spread their stories?

As per the previous question, it appears you don't understand what journalism is. Journalists report stories as objectively as possible, they don't play an active and knowing role in foreign intelligence operations. Surely the NYT and WaPo have played roles in furthering propaganda before (Iraq War), but they weren't co-conspirators. And it wasn't a foreign spy agency feeding them stolen materials to leak for destructive purposes. Big difference(s).

IF Wikileaks actually were journalists, they'd have a hell of a story to write about how their bipolar manic founder had been coopted by an autocratic intelligence agency to do their bidding, throwing away years of good work to actually expose the bad behavior of criminal governments.

I'd read that story.

> As things stand, Snowden would not receive a fair trial, as Assange is not.

Yeah that's not what he said. He said Snowden would face the full wrath of the US Gov (true) but that he's been able to protect others (in the last year even) that had the same pressures. The idea that Snowden "had no choice" is a ridiculous myth believed only by those who see him as a hero first (as part of their general world view), then figure out the facts of the matter later on.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#296

Post by boomboomsubban »

seppin wrote: post #295
boomboomsubban wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not being part of an information warfare campaign of an autocratic country's intelligence service, as we have definitive proof Wikileaks was So because a foreign intelligence group took advantage of a "useful idiot" they aren't journalists? Their actions don't matter? Do you feel the same towards writers being used by the CIA to spread their stories? I fully admit that some editing of the leaks would have been prefe…

> Do you feel the same towards writers being used by the CIA to spread their stories? As per the previous question, it appears you don't understand what journalism is. Journalists report stories as objectively as possible, they don't play an active and knowing role in foreign intelligence operations. Surely the NYT and WaPo have played roles in furthering propaganda before (Iraq War), but they weren't co-conspirators…

>they don't play an active and knowing role in foreign intelligence operations

Let's recap the evidence you have provided showing he played a "active and knowing role." First, that his show aired on RT. Second, that Wikileaks published the information they received. That is not a convincing argument.

If further evidence did emerge clearly showing Assange knowingly and actively assisting Russia, my position on the legality of his actions may change, and punishing him would not violate his rights.

>And it wasn't a foreign spy agency feeding them stolen materials to leak for destructive purposes

No, but many of the CIA's worldwide operations are exactly that. Plus, I don't find a domestic spy agency feeding them stolen materials for destructive purposes much better.

>Yeah that's not what he said

Those are my words, based on similar trials I have mentioned. He may have had other choices, at this point he would not receive a fair trial. Zaid already believes he deserves the punishment, like you do, so you both seem unconcerned about whether his trial would be fair.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#297

Post by erentz »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #274
erentz wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t know, and you don’t need to know. I think that’s really missing point of what I said. There is no requirement that Wikileaks or any media only publishes simultaneous dirt on opposing politicians. That would be impossible and can never make sense by the own twisted standards people who complain about Wikileaks are constantly coming up with. To make it possible would mean wikileaks would have to hold back pub…

You're missing the point. How do you know that wikileaks is trustworthy? Answer please.

That’s an impossible question for any organization but it’s entirely irrelevant and that’s what you’re missing. The information they leaked was real and important. Where it came from is secondary matter. People only got worked up about it because the information was about their preferred politician. The information could not be disputed, it was correct and not fabricated. But they cared more that dirt was leaked than the fact their politician was dirty. They should examine their principals.

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#298

Post by seppin »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #296
seppin wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you feel the same towards writers being used by the CIA to spread their stories? As per the previous question, it appears you don't understand what journalism is. Journalists report stories as objectively as possible, they don't play an active and knowing role in foreign intelligence operations. Surely the NYT and WaPo have played roles in furthering propaganda before (Iraq War), but they weren't co-conspirators…

>they don't play an active and knowing role in foreign intelligence operations Let's recap the evidence you have provided showing he played a "active and knowing role." First, that his show aired on RT. Second, that Wikileaks published the information they received. That is not a convincing argument. If further evidence did emerge clearly showing Assange knowingly and actively assisting Russia, my position on the leg…

> First, that his show aired on RT

I'm done with this bad faith nonsense, i've addressed the multiple people trying to shift the conversation away from what I said towards RT.

Assange, the guy that promised us all he would "open governments" takes his orders from a murderous KGB thug.

And he has no end of people still willing to make excuses for him (that's you).

Re: CIA vs. Wikileaks [video]

#299

Post by boomboomsubban »

seppin wrote: post #298
boomboomsubban wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they don't play an active and knowing role in foreign intelligence operations Let's recap the evidence you have provided showing he played a "active and knowing role." First, that his show aired on RT. Second, that Wikileaks published the information they received. That is not a convincing argument. If further evidence did emerge clearly showing Assange knowingly and actively assisting Russia, my position on the leg…

> First, that his show aired on RT I'm done with this bad faith nonsense, i've addressed the multiple people trying to shift the conversation away from what I said towards RT. Assange, the guy that promised us all he would "open governments" takes his orders from a murderous KGB thug. And he has no end of people still willing to make excuses for him (that's you).

Not believing he's a Kremlin agent without evidence isn't making excuses for him.
Post reply on HN