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

CIA malware and hacking tools

wikileaks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#901

Post by marmot777 »

netsharc wrote: post #893
marmot777 wrote: post #885

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are leaks from the Russian Federation so conspicuously absent? When it comes down to it, WL is a public relations and marketing agency for leakers who want the media to notice their handiwork. If you leaked something (document dump style) today there's a fair chance nobody would pay any attention to your claim to have this or that trove of documents so you'd need an agent. Who are you gonna call? I find it imposs…

But your claim is based on your faith that you "find it impossible to believe...". They did say they've changed to a computer-free environment after the Snowden leaks. Or maybe Russian would-be leakers know the stakes are higher for them than for American leakers, because they can get tea with a portion of Polonium.

I acknowledge I have no hard evidence to point to back up my claim. It comes down to an intuitive feeling that WL's been compromised somehow by the Russians. I think the reason for this feeling is based on the actions of WL all of which have alternative explanations but taken as a whole defy what I think are reasonable expectations about how a neutral organization like WL would conduct itself.

Whether or not you were a Clinton supporter or not, it was pretty shady to time and stagger the DNC releases for maximum political damage. That's simply not how a neutral arbiter of openness would conduct itself. I think that on its own is enough to refute any claims that WL is neutral or that their mission is about openness.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#902

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

drharby wrote: post #720
alpha_squared wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the purpose of devil's advocate in this, I think it's possible to state truths and still be misleading and/or distracting from another narrative. Just because something is true doesn't necessarily explain what the motive is for releasing that information. It's certainly healthy to have at least a shadow of a doubt as to what WikiLeaks's motivations are when it's already shown that it can either restrain itself fr…

Strongly concur. Ask any military officer who is a ring knocker; telling a 100% truthful narrative in such a manner as to provide a false narrative is still grounds for breaking the spirit of the honor code, and thus grounds for disenrollment.

Reminds me of working with someone who was a devout Christian. They'd never tell a lie, but were more than happy to give you just enough of the truth to let you walk away with an understanding that was completely the opposite of what had happened. After seeing this a couple times, I realized that there was a material difference between always telling the truth, and actually being honest.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#903

Post by marmot777 »

Sacho wrote: post #894
marmot777 wrote: post #885

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are leaks from the Russian Federation so conspicuously absent? When it comes down to it, WL is a public relations and marketing agency for leakers who want the media to notice their handiwork. If you leaked something (document dump style) today there's a fair chance nobody would pay any attention to your claim to have this or that trove of documents so you'd need an agent. Who are you gonna call? I find it imposs…

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russia I think you actually meant "Why are there no significant, recent leaks that have not been reported by anyone else about Russia"? There's plenty of innocuous explanations: - the media is currently on an anti-Russian frenzy. Why would you leak to Wikileaks, which has a much smaller reach than say, the NYT? - Assange has been painted as a Russian shill. Why would you leak to Wi…

I thought about this a bit and if it's true that Russian leakers only leak to intelligence agencies because the main PR agency for leakers is viewed as pro-Russian, then WL should recuse itself from this business. They're doing way more harm than good by inadvertently suppressing would be Russian leakers.

With regard to the item above about the NYT you realize that WL has always used the media just like a PR agency would, right?

Your first choice isn't to release to the NYT because the NYT gets god knows how many claims each day and they'd ignore you not to mention that curating the documents and preparing for a an actual story is harder than it looks. The press wants information packaged and ready to use. They'd prefer not to devote resources to vetting, sorting, and curating, as that's what WL does for them. By the time something gets to the NYT it is ready to emerge as a headline.

Reporters operate on deadlines. If you send them a quote ready press release that writes their story for them they're going to take notice if they happen to read your email. If you mail them or email them a document dump they're going to ignore it if they notice it at all. These are extremely busy people on tight deadlines under tremendous pressure.

They'll return phone calls from WL. From you or me? Not likely.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#904

Post by Ntrails »

hollander wrote: post #900
giaour wrote: post #871

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assange is hiding from the government of the United Kingdom, which has agreed to extradite him to Sweden, where he faces trial for rape.

This is an excellent example of telling the facts while distracting from the truth. He's afraid that he will be extradited to the US after being extradited to Sweden. The rape accusations are thought to be just a trick to get him to Sweden. If he had the guarantee that he would not be extradited he would go to Sweden immediately.

> If he had the guarantee that he would not be extradited he would go to Sweden immediately.

He can claim this, allowing him to imply that he is of course innocent, safe in the knowledge that it's impossible for the Swedish prosecutor to make such a guarantee.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#905

Post by cmdkeen »

hollander wrote: post #900
giaour wrote: post #871

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assange is hiding from the government of the United Kingdom, which has agreed to extradite him to Sweden, where he faces trial for rape.

This is an excellent example of telling the facts while distracting from the truth. He's afraid that he will be extradited to the US after being extradited to Sweden. The rape accusations are thought to be just a trick to get him to Sweden. If he had the guarantee that he would not be extradited he would go to Sweden immediately.

And there your are using assertion as truth "If he had the guarantee that he would not be extradited he would go to Sweden immediately." is completely unproven. Especially as Sweden cannot guarantee something that has not been asked for. There is also the inconvenient fact that the UK has to approve further extradition, and has in the past proven quite happy to extradite people to the US - unless Assange suddenly developers Aspergers and becomes the darling of the press which is unlikely. So why was he living, and happy to stay in the UK, if he was concerned with extradition? Given the whole 5 Eyes setup surely the UK should be a much more dangerous location than Sweden?

As I have to point out every time this pops up - Assange has been through the entire appeal chain of the UK courts arguing his case and he has been rejected at every stage. The courts are fiercely independent (see recent Brexit coverage) and have a history of standing up to the government of the day when it comes to extradition.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#906

Post by giaour »

hollander wrote: post #900
giaour wrote: post #871

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assange is hiding from the government of the United Kingdom, which has agreed to extradite him to Sweden, where he faces trial for rape.

This is an excellent example of telling the facts while distracting from the truth. He's afraid that he will be extradited to the US after being extradited to Sweden. The rape accusations are thought to be just a trick to get him to Sweden. If he had the guarantee that he would not be extradited he would go to Sweden immediately.

We'll have to agree to disagree on which is the distraction: the finding of British and Swedish courts, which have held that there is probable cause in the rape charges, or Julian Assange's crazy conspiracy theories.

I choose to believe the independent judiciaries of two sovereign nations.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#907

Post by ActsJuvenile »

mtgx wrote: post #709
abandonliberty wrote: post #485

It's interesting to note that Julian Assange didn't demonstrate control of the wikileaks private key during his Reddit AMA 1 month ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_as... Considering the political situation unfolding in the US and who this leak weakens, there is some evidence that wikileaks is not in the hands of a neutral party. There is clear motive right now for undermining the CIA. Th…

This argument that "they're building a narrative" really rubs me the wrong way. Yes, they're building a narrative - by pointing out the crap the CIA has been doing. This is not unlike how the US used to point out human rights abuses by China, Russia, and so on. If the "narrative" is accurate , then that's on the CIA.

Is that you, magical tux?

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#909

Post by ygaf »

chillwaves wrote: post #668
freyr wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can publish only true facts Can we go back to just calling them "facts"? A statement can be true or false, but a fact is true. You're playing into the idea that there are "false facts" or "alternative facts." There aren't. Those are lies or errors.

Because context matters? And people with any level of sophistication in their thinking can understand that. I don't even know how to respond to some folks here. You really think it's impossible to use facts to construct a narrative that is untrue? https://hbr.org/2016/10/theres-a-word-for-using-truthful-fac... Come on now. We're better than this.

>Come on now. We're better than this.

We should be above abusing the word "because". Honestly that shit is jarring.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#910

Post by yAnonymous »

abandonliberty wrote: post #485

It's interesting to note that Julian Assange didn't demonstrate control of the wikileaks private key during his Reddit AMA 1 month ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_as... Considering the political situation unfolding in the US and who this leak weakens, there is some evidence that wikileaks is not in the hands of a neutral party. There is clear motive right now for undermining the CIA. Th…

You're either a nutjob or you have at least as much of a political motive as you claim Wikileaks have.
Post reply on HN