41–50 of 182 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what is the significance of the insurance file hashes no longer matching the files?
None - they never did match the (encrypted) files. WL commented on this conspiracy theory earlier today, both saying Assange appreciates the concerns that he's dead, and saying that "obviously" the hashes are for decrypted files, not the encrypted ones: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/798997378552299521
X : X is not compromised.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that WikiLeaks' guiding philosophy as espoused in this article seems almost willfully naive.
What would you propose they do? Not leak documents based upon who the source is? If the documents are authentic, why does it matter who the source was? If A leaks documents on B revealing corruption about B, just because A's motives may not be pure, doesn't make B any less corrupt.
I have no problem with them publishing stuff that's legitimately concerning. But a lot of the Clinton leaks (and I'm no Clinton fan) seemed to me like little more than doxxing, in the full knowledge that the emails would pick up a tinge of scandal by association simply because they showed up on WikiLeaks.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wikileaks released information the timing of which was clearly meant to influence the US elections in a very particular way. Secondly, Assange issued statements clearly indicating his intentions to harm Clinton, not promote transparency. Why would the NYT publish this obvious garbage without counterpoint?
It seems pretty obvious that WikiLeaks has been compromised - is anyone buying this defense? And more importantly, who/what will replace WikiLeaks?
I feel like I'm out of the loop. When was wikileaks compromised? I've passively followed their work over the years, but I've tried to tune out most of the internet the past couple months.
No hard evidence, but it is worrying, especially when there are so many parties that would benefit from wikileak's infiltration/de-legitimization.
Wikileaks has released some important things, but they should be embarrassed that they thought the personal emails of Hillary's campaign staff saying sometimes silly things to each other was at all newsworthy. It was sensational, sure, but it revealed nothing important or even interesting. Anyone who spends a moment considering the question would expect campaign operatives to gripe about their opponents in over the t…
It's really bizarre how your comment has made it to the top of this thread, considering that it seems that the prevailing opinion here on HN is supportive of wikileaks. Your claim that the leaks are not newsworthy is absurd in the extreme, and your judgement is in question. There are hundreds of items of greater interest and importance in those mails than in a good portion of news stories published by most major news…
I don't care for either color of political party, so I can appreciate cryptographically authenticated information leaks for what they are.
"Some have accused us of being pawns of the Russian government, but this misrepresents our principles and basic operations. ...We prefer not to know who our sources are; we do not want to.." So they prefer to be unwitting pawns? Transparency is great, freedom of information is great, but is there some point at which you have to step back and acknowledge that you're being used by a foreign power? Doesn't that undermin…
I believe strongly in transparency as a way to prevent corruption, but spreading misinformation doesn't stop corruption, it furthers it. It doesn't 'shine a light', it creates shadows where a brutal dictator can hide while he hurts others. Look up "useful idiots" to understand the role they played. It's too easy to cite principle such as "transparency" in order to ignore the difficult questions of responsibility and…
Of course, this process is conducted with an odd lack of transparency.
Wikileaks has released some important things, but they should be embarrassed that they thought the personal emails of Hillary's campaign staff saying sometimes silly things to each other was at all newsworthy. It was sensational, sure, but it revealed nothing important or even interesting. Anyone who spends a moment considering the question would expect campaign operatives to gripe about their opponents in over the t…
Regardless of how (in)significant you think the material they release is, there's no such thing as too much transparency.
Should military plans be transparent? Your private health records? Rape victims' names? Should the President be able to receive confidential advice - if not, they may receive much less good advice and make worse decisions.
EDIT: Reworded it to remove the hyperbole
I'm sick of Julian Assange. I don't think he's a rapist, but based on what I've read, he certainly is a self-aggrandizing opportunistic asshole.
"Some have accused us of being pawns of the Russian government, but this misrepresents our principles and basic operations. ...We prefer not to know who our sources are; we do not want to.." So they prefer to be unwitting pawns? Transparency is great, freedom of information is great, but is there some point at which you have to step back and acknowledge that you're being used by a foreign power? Doesn't that undermin…
Yes, just as journalists often are when someone comes forward with a story or leaks information, etc.
By not making the sort of editorial decisions that would slant the meaning of the leaked data, WL stays above that. Other journalists are free to dig deeper and write full-scale investigative stories based on the data.