Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#61

Post by kleiba » Sat, Aug 17, 2013, 4:09 PM UTC

aroman wrote: post #53

RexRollman wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I see Facebook in a URL and I won't visit it, regardless of what it is.

And why is that, exactly?

Can't speak for the OP, but I often find myself reacting in a similar way. The reason is that in the past, more often than not all I got when clicking on such a link was a page asking me to login to see the actual content. I don't have a fb account, hence there's nothing to see for me.

This is not always the case because as far as I know you can see some pages without having to login first, but they seem to be a minority and so I learned simply to ignore such links.

It has nothing to do with dis-/liking fb or not, it's just a matter of practicality.

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#62

Post by zdean » Sat, Aug 17, 2013, 4:13 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #54

Renaud wrote: post #30

I wonder what are the risks associated with downloading and sharing such torrents. Evidently, anyone getting them becomes a highly visible target and once the content of these torrents is known, you could become involved in the distribution of classified data. Even if the content is not known, it could be viewed as an 'unfriendly' act and could make you become a "target of interest" to some zealous 3-letter agency...…

If I understand the law correctly, only military people have any prohibition about touching, reading, distributing, etc classified data. Normal citizens agreed to no such terms.

If I understand the law correctly, U.S. citizens cannot be assassinated by its own government without the benefit of due process.

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#63

Post by 0x45696e6172 » Sat, Aug 17, 2013, 4:21 PM UTC

Part of Wikileaks' manifest is a promise to the leakers to release the information eventually, and they have proven track record of doing so.

Aware of this, I wonder if new insurance files will have any influence on the actions of their enemies.

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#64

Post by thirstywhimbrel » Sat, Aug 17, 2013, 4:52 PM UTC

0x45696e6172 wrote: post #63

Part of Wikileaks' manifest is a promise to the leakers to release the information eventually, and they have proven track record of doing so. Aware of this, I wonder if new insurance files will have any influence on the actions of their enemies.

| I wonder if new insurance files will have any influence on the actions of their enemies.

Even without that, no effect. Blackmailing a bureaucracy... it's not like dealing with a single rational actor. That's the Hollywood version of Washington.

It's like coming upon a traffic jam and deciding you should bribe those responsible so you can go on your way.

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#65

Post by gugol » Sat, Aug 17, 2013, 4:57 PM UTC

a3n wrote: post #44

atmosx wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what if I'm not a USA citizens, they are watching me anyway. Anyway, if I were on the NSA's office, watching everyday comments on Hacker-News I'd already have targeted half it's crowd potentially dangerous to the security of the country, just for being so interested in national security matters. Those Geeks!!!

"Anyway, if I were on the NSA's office, watching everyday comments on Hacker-News ..." Wait, wait. You're saying there's a way to get paid to read HN all day? Where do I sign?

And for watching porn...

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#66

Post by gwern » Sat, Aug 17, 2013, 5:06 PM UTC

nwh wrote: post #28

XorNot wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would generally imply that they're not very good insurance files. I had the last one for a bit, and deleted it just now because I'm seriously doubtful these things are anything more then /dev/urandom piped into a file.

What gives you any indication of that? There's no way of telling a ciphertext from random bytes.

Well, obviously, there's no way of telling or he'd simply crack the file and say it was random.

His point is based more on softer considerations like "they never used the previous insurance file yet, have they?" and "Wikileaks pulls a lot of stunts" and "this is just the sort of thing that would appeal to a cryptogeek like Assange whose avowed purpose is to throw sand into the gears of secretive organizations" and "so how did they get 300GB+ of leaked stuff since the site has been half-inactive for years and Assange completely distracted by his legal issues? Who would trust them with it? eg. Snowden didn't go to Wikileaks".

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#67

Post by aneth4 » Sat, Aug 17, 2013, 5:28 PM UTC

kleiba wrote: post #61

aroman wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why is that, exactly?

Can't speak for the OP, but I often find myself reacting in a similar way. The reason is that in the past, more often than not all I got when clicking on such a link was a page asking me to login to see the actual content. I don't have a fb account, hence there's nothing to see for me. This is not always the case because as far as I know you can see some pages without having to login first, but they seem to be a mino…

So make an account without personal information. What's the big deal?

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#68

Post by erichurkman » Sat, Aug 17, 2013, 5:49 PM UTC

kintamanimatt wrote: post #42

jacquesm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living the high life and spending it all!

No, no, I meant the 3 hours per month on her laptop, and the 57 hours per week she's working, but not on her laptop. Maybe she's a ho (a busy one at that!) that does her own bookkeeping and accounting!

Hm, is there a market there? Tracking of tricks, scheduling hoes, budgeting, tracking money in drug/alcohol funds, and oversight dashboards for pimps? I mean, they need software too, right?

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#69

Post by kintamanimatt » Sat, Aug 17, 2013, 5:54 PM UTC

erichurkman wrote: post #68

kintamanimatt wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, no, I meant the 3 hours per month on her laptop, and the 57 hours per week she's working, but not on her laptop. Maybe she's a ho (a busy one at that!) that does her own bookkeeping and accounting!

Hm, is there a market there? Tracking of tricks, scheduling hoes, budgeting, tracking money in drug/alcohol funds, and oversight dashboards for pimps? I mean, they need software too, right?

I'm sure there is! Just don't host it in the cloud...!

Edit: I think I accidentally hit the down arrow instead of the up arrow! Apologies!

Re: Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files

#70

Post by seabee » Sat, Aug 17, 2013, 6:02 PM UTC

aneth4 wrote: post #67

kleiba wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't speak for the OP, but I often find myself reacting in a similar way. The reason is that in the past, more often than not all I got when clicking on such a link was a page asking me to login to see the actual content. I don't have a fb account, hence there's nothing to see for me. This is not always the case because as far as I know you can see some pages without having to login first, but they seem to be a mino…

So make an account without personal information. What's the big deal?

HN, reddit, digg et al. would have failed long long ago if half the websites required a login before you could see the linked content. I see no good reason to make an exception for just one particular website.