Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 432 posts

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#161

Post by onetimemanytime »

nickysielicki wrote: post #18

> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked…

>>I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. Not once.

Assuming what you said is true, don't you think that some things should be secret, at least for a while?

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#162

Post by thatlongthrow1 »

xorcist wrote: post #135
thatlongthrow1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never once published anything that has been proven false. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/885395248612085760 He has helped launder edited material from Russian state sponsored hackers in the past. That is one instance, should I find more?

Hello fellow concerned citizen! Did you create that throwaway account in anticipation of yesterday's release of this story, or do you keep a stack to pick from?

Considering you only comment on my account age I'm assuming you've seen all my comments on my profile page as well.

That you cannot address any of the comments and only wish to speak of my account age says volumes about where you are coming from.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#163

Post by aka1234 »

nickysielicki wrote: post #153
ShamelessC wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm generally on Assange's side in all of this. I agree he shouldn't be charged and this is all a disgrace. Having said that, I once went to wikileaks and found a PDF of Steve Job's supposed STD test which claimed he was HIV positive. That was a surprise to me as my understanding was that he died of cancer. I looked into it and no one could corroborate the story and the general consensus seemed to be that it was fake…

I had not heard of that and I am surprised that they would publish something so tabloidish. For what it's worth, I found this page [1] where they state: > Due to the contradictory dates, possible evidence of forgery, strong motivations for fabrication, and few motivations for a legitimate revelation, the images should not be taken at face value. And I found this reddit thread/comment from 11 years ago (when Wikileaks…

I too am shocked that Wikileaks would publish tabloidish material with little public value.

Next thing you know, I'll hear that Wikileaks posted private emails of a government official talking about pizza. Emails which spawned ridiculous conspiracies about satanic child abuse cults headquartered in the basement of a pizza shop that doesn't have a basement.

That would never happen. Not at an august, hard-hitting journalistic outlet like Wikileaks. /s

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#164

Post by macspoofing »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #104
macspoofing wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's what OP meant. At one point, I also thought WikiLeaks was going to be a new type of internet-era news organization pushing for full transparency, regardless of the target. I was disappointed when it turned out they were aimed solely at discrediting America and would editorialize and time their drops for maximum damage. They decided to become that kind of an organization, and they lost credibility…

Any government discredits itself when it commits horrible acts, like torture. When these actions become public, their reputation suffers, that's right and proper. > Facts always need to be contextualized in some narrative or ideology Like we contextualized Covid19 in Republican ideology to refuse to wear masks? Facts stand for themselves, ideology is harfull.

>Facts stand for themselves, ideology is harfull.

When the George Floyd protests were ramping up 3 weeks ago, the media and many public health officials made statements in support of them and minimized (or outright dismissed) the risks of breaking bans on large public gatherings. Apparently the facts around COVID infection rates couldn't be taken at face-value but needed to be balanced with the righteous intent of the protests. So don't pretend one side is different from another. That one politicizes the pandemic, and the other doesn't.

You missed the salient point though. Facts do not imply policy. They can inform policy, but policy comes out of ideology. You can state a fact about poverty rates, but you will get radically different answers about how to solve it from a Marxist and a Libertarian.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#165

Post by stormdennis »

caymanjim wrote: post #156
stormdennis wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HIV wasn't around in the 1970s (in Western countries at least) and also Jobs wasn't in the more at-risk demographics for the disease.

It very much was around in the 1970s, and you have no idea what his sex life was. But none of this is any of our business.

Given that the first recognised death from AIDS was in the 80s, I'd dispute your saying that it was very much around in the 70s. I don't know what his sex life was like but as far as we know he wasn't a prostitute, a I.V. drug user or gay, so yeah he wasn't in any of the demographics hardest hit.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#166

Post by [deleted] »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #89
ReptileMan wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean ... the US has not even got hands on him yet. He hasn't been in US custody for a second. There is absolutely no case. Yet. If you want to feel contempt strongly towards someone - the UK, Ecuador and Sweden governments are the ones to blame so far.

There is a United Nations report detailing how Assange is being politically prosecuted. This is no longer merely an opinion of his sympathysers.

[deleted]

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#167

Post by henearkr »

gus_massa wrote: post #154
umvi wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think would happen if an journalist started trying to help hackers recover secrets from French Intelligence agencies and then published them for the whole world to see? What if the leaked secrets were mostly true? Do you think the French Government would celebrate the journalist? Or would they do everything in their power to stop them?

This articles is not about journalists, but it is somewhat related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

You are saying France did bad shit, and that's true, you forgot Napoleon slaughters throughout Europe, Nazis collaboration and Petain, colonial rule and enslaving of American, African and Asian nations, nuclear tests, and I forgot a lot. Still, you are hardly touching the subject.

We are speaking about the here and now, how we should abide by the international law when responding to cyber threats, in the context of a transparent and globalized world.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#168

Post by 0x8BADF00D »

arcticfox wrote: post #151
0x8BADF00D wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an officer of a public corporation, how much privacy can one expect? I agree that he had a right to privacy, same as anyone else.

> I agree that he had a right to privacy, same as anyone else. Agreed. > As an officer of a public corporation, how much privacy can one expect? So we should violate his rights without repercussion? Lost me.

As a public figure you cannot have any reasonable expectation of privacy. That’s different from saying what should be done with his private medical records.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#169

Post by belorn »

uep wrote: post #152
dijit wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I must have missed where anyone in this thread-chain has asserted that statement at all.

Lies of omission are still lies. To use an extreme example, if a reporting organization writes a story about one nation launching missile strikes against another, and leaves out that they were retaliatory strikes from a previous attack, that dramatically changes the perception of those events. If this sort of thing is continually done to benefit one entity, it is reasonable to question the honesty of the reporter. Ev…

This is the primary reason why every time I read a news article that seems to have a bit "too perfect" narrative about who is good and who is bad, I go and check Wikipedia or other news sites. It usually result in a broader context. Few things tend to be black or white, and never in any political topics.

Out of all news I read there is maybe one small set of investigative journalist that I trust to give me a balanced amount of context to from my own opinion, and as a mark of quality, they are disliked by the government, activists, the left and the right.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#170

Post by monocasa »

thatlongthrow1 wrote: post #35
himinlomax wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was the info false, or do you just object to the sourcing?

Yes the info was false. >A few hours later, the assessment worsened: a friendly source from CNAIPIC was telling them that some of the documents had been forged. One document number, when checked against CNAIPIC’s system, reportedly corresponded to a wholly unrelated matter. The remaining real documents didn’t seem to have come from CNAIPIC either. Instead, police were apparently investigating “a small IT company that…

A) The CNAIPIC leaks weren't by wikileaks

B) Why do we trust the CNAIPIC to tell the truth that they weren't their docs?

Post reply on HN