Wikileaks

[prisonermonkeys]

Wait so is the argument that because Assange doesn't reveal his sources, all of sudden justification that he is non-transparent and a scrupulous liar

Given the way he runs things, it suggests that he has an agenda. He positions himself as the champion of government transparency - be it by hook or by crook - but is himself opaque. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes; who will watch the watchmen?

Take the election as an example. In this scenario, Assange has documents that are equally damaging to Trump and to Clinton. What is stopping him from releasing one set and quashing the other to try and influence the outcome? Or deliberately releasing them at a time that is damaging for one candidate, but the other can weather it? It doesn't matter if he succeeds in shaping the outcome; all he has to do is try. Without any sort of transparency in place, how can we ever know his intentions, if indeed he has them?

 

[Scaff]

If I were a politician I most likely would not care much for wikileaks either but to state it is a threat to national security is a bit of a stretch. It could be a threat to some's security however.

The people have the right to as much information as possible and stating otherwise is a joke, "You can't know the truth because that would hinder our government's job", really? Who is representing who here exactly?

I can think of almost countless way it could impact on the security of a nation.

Just one example would be if every detail of the upcoming inauguration were leaked, from the details of the logistics, security plans, police and security service staff details, etc.

What about if the details of the entire US infrastructure was released? Every password, every part of the security structure, etc for the US internet, water supply, power supply, air traffic control, road and rail traffic control, nucular power stations and so on. That would certainly have an impact on national security.

Now WL used to take care to curate material and redact information that related to personal information of private citizens or could risk harm to individuals. That however has taken much more of a back seat of late, to the degree that even Edward Snowdon raised it as a concern.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-and-wikileaks-clash-over-dnc-leaks-2016-7

One of the worst examples of this was the doxxing of almost every Turkish female voter. Information that has no public interest, was nothing to do with Erdogan as they had been presented and simply should never have been done.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/11158792

 

[Johnnypenso]

Given the way he runs things, it suggests that he has an agenda. He positions himself as the champion of government transparency - be it by hook or by crook - but is himself opaque. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes; who will watch the watchmen?

Take the election as an example. In this scenario, Assange has documents that are equally damaging to Trump and to Clinton. What is stopping him from releasing one set and quashing the other to try and influence the outcome? Or deliberately releasing them at a time that is damaging for one candidate, but the other can weather it? It doesn't matter if he succeeds in shaping the outcome; all he has to do is try. Without any sort of transparency in place, how can we ever know his intentions, if indeed he has them?

By in this scenario do you mean, "in this example I made up and have no evidence for"? Calling for transparency in an organization that is wholly dependent on anonymous inside whisteblowers and clandestine hackers? Bit of a stretch...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Given the way he runs things, it suggests that he has an agenda. He positions himself as the champion of government transparency - be it by hook or by crook - but is himself opaque. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes; who will watch the watchmen?

Bit of a silly question really, is it so hard to believe that one, he wants to see the powers to be burn whether you like it or not, and that he isn't hiding anything other than who gave him the info. Now why he does that is of question, he could simply do it to protect his conglomerate of leakers so they don't face jail time or less, job loss. Or he does it so he doesn't lose valuable sources that keep him in the lime light. To be honest yet again I don't care about the founder, I care about the product that is being given. I will make my own judgement from what I see and read from the leaks.

For example the link Scaff gave the half I've read so far seems to be of a person who had a time with Assange and his group but sees Wikileaks as some sort of conspiracy hive mind. And that those giving info are no more than wet behind ears young adults trying to achieve justice. The bits of sources he gives to show this deep conspiracy theory is easily awash when you research and see that Wikileaks was correct. Even still correct or not I don't need their interpretation to tell me what is wrong or right with the real world they leak.

Take the election as an example. In this scenario, Assange has documents that are equally damaging to Trump and to Clinton. What is stopping him from releasing one set and quashing the other to try and influence the outcome? Or deliberately releasing them at a time that is damaging for one candidate, but the other can weather it? It doesn't matter if he succeeds in shaping the outcome; all he has to do is try. Without any sort of transparency in place, how can we ever know his intentions, if indeed he has them?

Oh yes, I find it hard to take any one scenario that you've had great dialogue on as a legit argument because you had a vested bias interest. I did not. Also why not release the info at a time most damaging, it should be done that way, Hillary nor Trump deserved to be the next President, and you especially with no actual say have a place to decide that anymore than I do in your native country. Your like of Hillary simply because she meets the tick marks of what a typical presidential candidate has before being a President, and the fact that Trump is anti-sjw which you've expressed is a hazard. Are all delusional reasons for why you're mad about this. It has nothing to do with the fact that truthful info was leaked and proven undeniable by the DNC and the Hillary camp...which for anyone that doesn't care wold be an issue.

 

[xyloscissor]

I can think of almost countless way it could impact on the security of a nation.

I think the boogie man excuse is used way too often but I do agree there are instances when a bit of integrity is in order.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

The bits of sources he gives to show this deep conspiracy theory is easily awash when you research and see that Wikileaks was correct.

Could you clarify what you mean here? By "Wikileaks was correct" do you mean the leaks were correct? I don't see what the accuracy of the information they publish has to do with the concerns surrounding the means by which Wikileaks conduct themselves (the focus of the article); it sounds like you're linking the two here.

Also out of interest what is the "deep conspiracy theory" you think the author is showing? Everyone's interpretation will be different but to me that's an oddly simplistic and broad stroke to paint an article which touches on a number of competing narratives (and highlights other concerns over Wikileaks's conduct independent of his personal accounts). I don't know what conclusion you've reached over the article but to reduce it to conspiracy-peddling would be a convenient (Clinton-esque, dare I say it) way to dismiss the concerns* it raises.


*emphasis on 'concerns' - to be clear like @Scaff I take the article no more as automatically true than I would as automatically false.

 

[xyloscissor]

It seems that some question if the information WL publishes is genuine or not, if the information is false it's not fair to shoot the messenger is it? If WL has an agenda so what tbh, it's simply another resource in my quest to understand what happens in the world.

No one source is the gospel and as such no one source should be praised or shot down.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Could you clarify what you mean here? By "Wikileaks was correct" do you mean the leaks were correct? I don't see what the accuracy of the information they publish has to do with the concerns surrounding the means by which Wikileaks conduct themselves (the focus of the article); it sounds like you're linking the two here.

Also out of interest what is the "deep conspiracy theory" you think the author is showing? Everyone's interpretation will be different but to me that's an oddly simplistic and broad stroke to paint an article which touches on a number of competing narratives (and highlights other concerns over Wikileaks's conduct independent of his personal accounts). I don't know what conclusion you've reached over the article but to reduce it to conspiracy-peddling would be a convenient (Clinton-esque, dare I say it) way to dismiss the concerns* it raises.


*emphasis on 'concerns' - to be clear like @Scaff I take the article no more as automatically true than I would automatically false.

No, I'm not even talking about the leaks. There is a portion of the article that seems to be trying to redirect how one should look at Wikileaks. For example there is a tweet showing Wikileaks talking about how the Economist is in bed with the Hillary camp (during the election obviously) because Rothschild ownership, and how that particular Rothschild is widely known and said to be a Hillary supporter. However, the article talks about the Rothschild conspiracy and makes a note of it being a long going anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Yet when one actually does research on this example you find that what the tweet said from Wikileaks had nothing to do with some old hat conspiracy, and actually just stated factual stuff.

In fact it seemed poised on the fact that a well known powerful media group was slanting news in favor of a party or person, that thus wanted to expose this. And this tweet seemingly comes along right after the exposure of media collusion with the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. Reread my post, I'm talking about only a portion of the article and say I haven't read the entire thing, but I wanted to make note of how that portion seemed unnecessary. As if the writer isn't simply out to expose a balanced view on what many of us don't know about Wikileaks, but rather an agenda filled version. Not the half of it I read is entirely this, but there are portions that seem to be a bit skewed in thought.

It seems that some question if the information WL publishes is genuine or not, if the information is false it's not fair to shoot the messenger is it? If WL has an agenda so what tbh, it's simply another resource in my quest to understand what happens in the world.

No one source is the gospel and as such no one source should be praised or shot down.

Sources should be shot down when they have a one sided narrative, journalism is never meant to be the story teller or cherry picked information provider for anyone. If the news harshly effects a party so be it, that's on that party, journalist organizations shouldn't decide for it's people who they want to side with.

On the same note, people shouldn't be gullible either when deciding to pick one or two media sources as their primary info on the world. But so often it doesn't work this way in either case and that's why I am fine with what Wikileaks does without having to actually care for Assange or not.

 

[xyloscissor]

Is it reasonable to assume that you lose some right to privacy when you take a public office?(or even purposely put yourself in the spotlight)

 

[prisonermonkeys]

To be honest yet again I don't care about the founder, I care about the product that is being given. I will make my own judgement from what I see and read from the leaks.

And what about the things he has, but doesn't release?

He has recently voiced the opinion that Russia was not responsible for the Democrats' leaked e-mails. This seems to have won him the ear of Trump, who apparently doesn't want to hear a bad word against Russia - despite the way that Russian malware was found on a public works computer in Delaware.

Don't you think it's possible that Assange is telling Trump what he wants to hear in the hopes of getting a presidential pardon? He has a vested interest in a particular outcome here, and so long as he continues to be opaque, it's difficult to know for sure. Wikileaks is like any other government agency or media outlet: what they say might be truthful, but you can only trust them to tell you the truth that they want you to hear.

 

[xyloscissor]

And what about the things he has, but doesn't release?

What about it? Do you know what he has? No, does it matter? No. That is like people in my life that are angry with me for not doing what I am good at doing because I don't want to, sure it would make them happy but I live to make myself happy.

He has no specific obligation, I don't believe he is one sided but if he is, again so what?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

And what about the things he has, but doesn't release?

He has recently voiced the opinion that Russia was not responsible for the Democrats' leaked e-mails. This seems to have won him the ear of Trump, who apparently doesn't want to hear a bad word against Russia - despite the way that Russian malware was found on a public works computer in Delaware.

Wow cause yeah that's impossible to happen, you do realize that malware originating from Russia being caught in the U.S. isn't all that surprising...

Don't you think it's possible that Assange is telling Trump what he wants to hear in the hopes of getting a presidential pardon? He has a vested interest in a particular outcome here, and so long as he continues to be opaque, it's difficult to know for sure. Wikileaks is like any other government agency or media outlet: what they say might be truthful, but you can only trust them to tell you the truth that they want you to hear.

I don't really care. They leak troves of info that are damaging to all groups and info that most people don't even bother to look at because it's not currently a hot topic. They're not a 24hour cable news network that just does the same daily headline, in fact they give insight into the headlines that you'll never get and more. So I don't see how you somehow have this information that their is withheld data. If there is then how do you know it's not planned for a further date, or insurance. To compare Wikileaks or another whistle blowing network to media and government agencies is a bad and non-existent parallel. I mean the only thing they do similar is provide info...

This doesn't mean they're off the hook, I think it'd be quite easy for a government to infiltrate such a system and provide false info to help destroy the underpinnings but that's yet to happen it seems.

 

[Dotini]

The emails were leaked, not hacked, it says here.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-hacking-intelligence-20170105-story.html

 

[xyloscissor]

The emails were leaked, not hacked, it says here.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-hacking-intelligence-20170105-story.html

Hardly surprising is it? What kills me is how people think the content is so damning or important, it's just a bunch of junk and business as usual, no smoking gun.

 

[Scaff]

The emails were leaked, not hacked, it says here.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-hacking-intelligence-20170105-story.html

It claims.

That's an opinion piece, with no actual evidence to support it's opinion.

 

[xyloscissor]

If the DNC was hacked they wanted to be hacked, this is america and we have the best of the best when it comes to that sort of thing. Thinking of them as innocent is an insult to anyone's intelligence frankly.

 

[Scaff]

If the DNC was hacked they wanted to be hacked, this is america and we have the best of the best when it comes to that sort of thing. Thinking of them as innocent is an insult to anyone's intelligence frankly.

So the only organisations in the US that get hacked are ones that want to be?

I just want to be 100% sure that's the claim you are making.

 

[xyloscissor]

No, I am not making that claim. Take away any sort of partisan whatever might be and think for a second. Look at the facts of the matter for what they are, we do get hacked and we have been compromised without any question but this deal about blaming the russians for rigging our election?

You cannot be serious.

 

[Scaff]

No, I am not making that claim. Take away any sort of partisan whatever might be and think for a second. Look at the facts of the matter for what they are, we do get hacked and we have been compromised without any question but this deal about blaming the russians for rigging our election?

You cannot be serious.

Then the wording of your last post is extremely misleading, as that's exactly how it's written.

No as far as blaming the Russians? I've not done that, but not am I automatically going to state them as innocent.

 

[xyloscissor]

Have you seen the emails? I've linked it before and I'll find it for you, it's not exactly the sort of thing to write home about. A bunch of meaningless day to day stuff, using the hack or leak or whatever it is to claim it influenced the election is the joke.

I don't know how it came to be nor do I care, it's dribble that the press decided to run with because their queen was disgraced. We've had it happen in a real sense with Nixon, but this? no wai.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/

Have at it there is nothing there, nothing that could sway a POTUS election, it's all a farce imo of course.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So I don't see how you somehow have this information that their is withheld data.

I don't, and that's the point. Nobody does. Haven't you heard the expression that you should only ever believe half of what you read in a newspaper? So long as there is no transparency from Wikileaks, I think it's a valid point. However he uses it, Julian Assange has a lot of political power. If he didn't, he wouldn't be holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy and the Ecuadorians wouldn't be taking requests to cut off his internet access. So he's got a whole lot of power without being subject to any kind of oversight (though oversight would defeat the purpose of Wikileaks). Doesn't it bother you that a man who styles himself as being the one to "keep the bastards honest" apparently has no accountability?

 

[Imari]

Doesn't it bother you that a man who styles himself as being the one to "keep the bastards honest" apparently has no accountability?

Not really.

Why should he be accountable? He puts out what information he has or wants to. Everyone else can act like rational human beings and take it at face value instead of assuming that it's the whole truth, nothing but the truth so help me Rick Astley.

He doesn't owe you, me, or anyone else a damn thing. He's not elected. He's not representing anyone except maybe the people who supply him information. And they choose to do so.

He can do as he pleases, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Scaff]

Have you seen the emails? I've linked it before and I'll find it for you, it's not exactly the sort of thing to write home about. A bunch of meaningless day to day stuff, using the hack or leak or whatever it is to claim it influenced the election is the joke.

I don't know how it came to be nor do I care, it's dribble that the press decided to run with because their queen was disgraced. We've had it happen in a real sense with Nixon, but this? no wai.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/

Have at it there is nothing there, nothing that could sway a POTUS election, it's all a farce imo of course.

I'm well aware of the content of them, but that has nothing to do with who may or may not have been the ones to obtain it and supply it to Wiki leaks.

Oh and certain elements of the US press would disagree with you in regards to it not been damning. Lest we forget it 'proves' devil worship, child murder and a whole load of other things (actually no it doesn't, but that didn't stop claims of that nature being made).

 

[xyloscissor]

It's simply blown way out of proportion to me I guess, we'll never know who leaked or hacked etc. but this is not the cold war, it is a crazy lady losing an election to a crazy man. For what it is worth I'm not happy with Trump in anyway but I do love my country, I love our systems, and I love the office...

Therefore he is my president and I will back him, it's time to move on people, spilt milk is something you wipe up. Perhaps we should put out caution cones and yellow tape around it for everyone to see for the next four years?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

He puts out what information he has or wants to.

Can he still be claiming to perform a service for the public if he consciously chooses to put out information that, while in the public interest to know, also means that he benefits?

Why should he be accountable?

Because we're in the era of post-truth politics - where facts are less important than the way the public perceives them, and perception is so much easier to manipulate. An organisation like Wikileaks only works when it is completely transparent, least of all because it advocates transparency in government. There is a big difference between "the public needs to know" and "the public needs to know, but only when we want them to".

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I don't, and that's the point. Nobody does. Haven't you heard the expression that you should only ever believe half of what you read in a newspaper? So long as there is no transparency from Wikileaks, I think it's a valid point. However he uses it, Julian Assange has a lot of political power. If he didn't, he wouldn't be holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy and the Ecuadorians wouldn't be taking requests to cut off his internet access. So he's got a whole lot of power without being subject to any kind of oversight (though oversight would defeat the purpose of Wikileaks). Doesn't it bother you that a man who styles himself as being the one to "keep the bastards honest" apparently has no accountability?

Sadly (not really) @Imari sums up more or less what I'd have said myself. What I find most interesting and troubling, is you create another narrative yet again where if it isn't something you view as good giving info or doing something that you want them to do, clearly there is something bad about it. I feel and stress had it not been for the info given in regards to the DNC and Hillary Clinton games you'd not be here arguing against Wikileaks and more so Assange.

What info he has that we're not aware of means what? He's not a government or social group invested in actually being honest with the people or open. As I said prior if this were actually a challenge against Wikileaks I'd be interested to hear it, rather this is a complaint about it affecting a no longer presidential runner.

Because we're in the era of post-truth politics - where facts are less important than the way the public perceives them, and perception is so much easier to manipulate. An organisation like Wikileaks only works when it is completely transparent, least of all because it advocates transparency in government. There is a big difference between "the public needs to know" and "the public needs to know, but only when we want them to".

What? If anything people are more paranoid and more out to find source like Wikileaks to prove to their inner psuedo Sherlock that "I knew it all along, I knew Hillary wasn't that good"

In reality I'd say only a few people could say this and they can only do it cause they never trusted a Clinton to begin with, the fact that certain documents actually validate peoples opinion is simply luck. Also once again, it's a free info source. It's not a service, there not on anyone's payroll or even legally bound. Yet you act like they actually work for the people.

It's like a person that use to work in your industry revealing the dirty deeds of the various associations you now deal with. They had not obligation to let you know the illegal or morally corrupt things going on, but they did so out of best interest for people who may be involved. I find the best argument for what is done here similar to the reasoning (if you believe it or not) that Snowden gives.

 

[Dotini]

Hardly surprising is it? What kills me is how people think the content is so damning or important, it's just a bunch of junk and business as usual, no smoking gun.

Multiple persons from the DNC were forced to resign, including two chairwomen.

 

[Imari]

Can he still be claiming to perform a service for the public if he consciously chooses to put out information that, while in the public interest to know, also means that he benefits?

He can claim whatever he wants. We don't have to believe him.

As far as benefiting him, good on him if it does. We're not all self-less robots doing everything for the good of humanity.

Because we're in the era of post-truth politics - where facts are less important than the way the public perceives them, and perception is so much easier to manipulate. An organisation like Wikileaks only works when it is completely transparent, least of all because it advocates transparency in government. There is a big difference between "the public needs to know" and "the public needs to know, but only when we want them to".

Seems like it works just fine when it's not completely transparent. It's doing the job as advertised; working as a front for whistleblowers to publish information without sacrificing their livelihoods and potentially their lives.

It's not the World Truth Organisation. It's a bunch of people publishing leaks. If they want to control what information they release then that's their right to do so. I don't see where you're getting this high horse that they owe you transparency from. Wikileaks does what Wikileaks does, and you can take it or leave it.

 

[waboo]

Opinions ?

1.00 onwards, content is better watching all as always. (Edited to put time etc in).

 

[mustafur]

Rather odd that you asked the question in the first place.

Now as far as everything they publish being 100% accurate? I doubt it, given that I've never come across any organisation that perfect, but we will never know unless someone is willing to break a $20 million NDA that wiki leaks make staff sign.

However can we assume by your comments that you also don't believe any of the US intelligence agencies either?

We don't have much reason to think they will lie when from most of our known knowledge it's been completely true what they have posted, American US intelligence on the other hand have lied constantly.