5 ms·

Why did they publish his SF-86? This seems like a very irresponsible invasion of Brennan's personal privacy; nothing in there could possibly be of legitimate pu

Why did they publish his SF-86? This seems like a very irresponsible invasion of Brennan's personal privacy; nothing in there could possibly be of legitimate public interest.

dmschulman 11y ago
It really serves no public interest, I was honestly shocked when I saw that Wikileaks decided to publish this stuff. Publishing leaked personal emails with no newsworthiness is the kind of thing a dirty supermarket tabloid like Gawker would do. At least I imagined that Wikileaks would want to preserve their reputation as doing something for the public good but a childish move like this focused on a single individual (an enemy in their eyes) makes me question the organization's values going forward.
- skybrian 11y ago
  Um, isn't Wikileaks famous for wanting to just publish data dumps of everything? It's their partners at newspapers who sometimes talk them out of it. It seems like you're confusing them with some other organization that does responsible disclosure.
  - dmschulman 11y ago
    They've been grasping for relevancy the last few years ever since Assange has gone into exile but the Chelsea Manning disclosures were newsworthy and responsibly handled. The Cablegate leaks were newsworthy and responsibly handled. Syrian/Saudi diplomatic emails, Iraq/Afghanistan war documents, Trans-pacific Partnership reporting. These actions bring attention to large groups of people in power and hold governments accountable for their actions. Publishing the emails from an AOL account of a CIA director doesn't quite fit that mould.
    - _username 11y ago
      You're missing the point. "He did nothing wrong, therefore he has nothing to hide". Are you really questioning the fact that this was made public while NSA, CIA and other agencies have been wiping their asses with the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and the Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
      - dmschulman 11y ago
        No one is questioning that it was made public, rather, that Wikileaks decided to latch on to a data leak that kind of shares the same trollish territory as leaking nude celebrity photos. Running with the Chelsea Manning leak helped start a conversation about the ethics of drone warfare and the culpability of the US military in the deaths of civilians. What kind of a wider conversation does leaking John Brennan's SF-86 create? Maybe there's some ancillary discussion about those in the security community not using secure channels but it mostly just feels like a cheap shot.
        _username 11y ago
        > What kind of a wider conversation does leaking John Brennan's SF-86 create? Does it necessarily have to create a conversation? It, at the very least, destroys yet another time the "nothing to hide" argument and underlines both the fact that nobody is safe unless active measures are taken and that all this spying business is tainted with serious amateurism. And if this is worthless to you, see it as a backlash. Our personal informations are intercepted on a daily basis and played with in a way that we have no control over. The average Joe, alone, can't fight back, Wikileaks is the collective answer. It is in-line with Trevor Paglen's work [1] on demystifying spying activities: they're no super heroes, they're bound to physical, practical and logistical limitations (like we all are), we can fight them. [1] (video) "Seeing The Secret State: Six Landscapes" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF4vQA7eWgE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF4vQA7eWgE
    - NN88 11y ago
      The Saudi leaks were sunni. Russia is anti Saudi because of oil Pay attention. They're being co-opted: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-16/saudi-arabia-s-oil-war-with-russia http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-16/saudi-arabi...
- mc808 11y ago
  It's in the public interest if encryption and digital security are in the public interest. People like this have a voice that's actually heard when those topics come up. It's just a gentle reminder that actively sabotaging security "for national security" can come back to bite.
- Khaine 11y ago
  Wikileaks has been doing this for a while. They have never truly been concerned with the public interest Snowden too. Some of the stuff he leaked was not in the public interest
rhino369 11y ago
>nothing in there could possibly be of legitimate public interest. There could be. There is a reason the government asks there questions because they get relevant information. Hypothetically there could be newsworthy stuff in there. But there isn't anything actually in there. So it's shitty to leak it.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
panarky 11y ago
This has nothing to do with the contents of any particular document. It has everything to do with Assange's larger strategy to weaken or destroy "unjust systems of governance". Assange himself explained the "non-linear effects of leaks on unjust systems of governance[1]". His rationale is that illegitimate power requires conspiracy and conspiracy requires secrecy. Therefore, by leaking information Assange makes secrecy so difficult that it cripples the organization's ability to communicate with itself and operate the conspiracy. The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption. Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance. [1] http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf [pdf]
- tedks 11y ago
  This should be required reading for aspiring cyberpunks. Assange is an archetypical agent of 5th-generation warfare, and Wikileaks is a perfect example of a Robbian superempowered group: http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2008/02/journal-on-supe.html http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2008/02... And he's winning. He might die, in horrible agony, in an Argentinian embassy, but he'll take the CIA down with him. What a time to be alive indeed.
NN88 11y ago
Why? Its obvious why at this point. * Theres a theory that WIKILEAKS has been a FSB front since 2010: * https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3pobtq/is_russia_secretly_influencing_wikileaks_i_dont/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3pobtq/is_russi... They haven't posted a SINGLE ANTI-Russian document since they threatened to leak documents in 2010 This is ONLY about Embarrassing the West. At first I was skeptical, now i'm fully convinced that Assange and crew are TOTAL useful idiots.
- tinco 11y ago
  There are no anti-russian documents because Assange nor any of his activists care about Russia. They care about the Western world, that's why they prod it.
  - NN88 11y ago
    If this is the case, they can't claim to be objective.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      They don't claim to be objective, they claim to pass on data that is real. You don't know what they don't pass on, you don't know what they change and you can't know whether or not something is real without outside verification. Think of them as an imperfect channel that seems to present - to date at least - an insane amount of real data and the occasional manipulated video.
    - ionised 11y ago
      They are objective about the western world. I live in the western world, so that's what I care about.
  - Grue3 11y ago
    Strange because Snowden lives in Russia, you'd think he'd care about his new home. Surely he cares about all the oppression that's going on in here?
- 11y ago

Why did they publish his SF-86? This seems like a very irresponsible invasion of Brennan's personal privacy; nothing in there could possibly be of legitimate public interest.

dmschulman 11y ago

It really serves no public interest, I was honestly shocked when I saw that Wikileaks decided to publish this stuff. Publishing leaked personal emails with no newsworthiness is the kind of thing a dirty supermarket tabloid like Gawker would do. At least I imagined that Wikileaks would want to preserve their reputation as doing something for the public good but a childish move like this focused on a single individual (an enemy in their eyes) makes me question the organization's values going forward.

skybrian 11y ago
Um, isn't Wikileaks famous for wanting to just publish data dumps of everything? It's their partners at newspapers who sometimes talk them out of it. It seems like you're confusing them with some other organization that does responsible disclosure.
- dmschulman 11y ago
  They've been grasping for relevancy the last few years ever since Assange has gone into exile but the Chelsea Manning disclosures were newsworthy and responsibly handled. The Cablegate leaks were newsworthy and responsibly handled. Syrian/Saudi diplomatic emails, Iraq/Afghanistan war documents, Trans-pacific Partnership reporting. These actions bring attention to large groups of people in power and hold governments accountable for their actions. Publishing the emails from an AOL account of a CIA director doesn't quite fit that mould.
  - _username 11y ago
    You're missing the point. "He did nothing wrong, therefore he has nothing to hide". Are you really questioning the fact that this was made public while NSA, CIA and other agencies have been wiping their asses with the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and the Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
    - dmschulman 11y ago
      No one is questioning that it was made public, rather, that Wikileaks decided to latch on to a data leak that kind of shares the same trollish territory as leaking nude celebrity photos. Running with the Chelsea Manning leak helped start a conversation about the ethics of drone warfare and the culpability of the US military in the deaths of civilians. What kind of a wider conversation does leaking John Brennan's SF-86 create? Maybe there's some ancillary discussion about those in the security community not using secure channels but it mostly just feels like a cheap shot.
      - _username 11y ago
        > What kind of a wider conversation does leaking John Brennan's SF-86 create? Does it necessarily have to create a conversation? It, at the very least, destroys yet another time the "nothing to hide" argument and underlines both the fact that nobody is safe unless active measures are taken and that all this spying business is tainted with serious amateurism. And if this is worthless to you, see it as a backlash. Our personal informations are intercepted on a daily basis and played with in a way that we have no control over. The average Joe, alone, can't fight back, Wikileaks is the collective answer. It is in-line with Trevor Paglen's work [1] on demystifying spying activities: they're no super heroes, they're bound to physical, practical and logistical limitations (like we all are), we can fight them. [1] (video) "Seeing The Secret State: Six Landscapes" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF4vQA7eWgE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF4vQA7eWgE
  - NN88 11y ago
    The Saudi leaks were sunni. Russia is anti Saudi because of oil Pay attention. They're being co-opted: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-16/saudi-arabia-s-oil-war-with-russia http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-16/saudi-arabi...
mc808 11y ago
It's in the public interest if encryption and digital security are in the public interest. People like this have a voice that's actually heard when those topics come up. It's just a gentle reminder that actively sabotaging security "for national security" can come back to bite.
Khaine 11y ago
Wikileaks has been doing this for a while. They have never truly been concerned with the public interest Snowden too. Some of the stuff he leaked was not in the public interest

rhino369 11y ago

>nothing in there could possibly be of legitimate public interest. There could be. There is a reason the government asks there questions because they get relevant information. Hypothetically there could be newsworthy stuff in there. But there isn't anything actually in there. So it's shitty to leak it.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

panarky 11y ago

This has nothing to do with the contents of any particular document. It has everything to do with Assange's larger strategy to weaken or destroy "unjust systems of governance". Assange himself explained the "non-linear effects of leaks on unjust systems of governance[1]". His rationale is that illegitimate power requires conspiracy and conspiracy requires secrecy. Therefore, by leaking information Assange makes secrecy so difficult that it cripples the organization's ability to communicate with itself and operate the conspiracy. The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption. Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance. [1] http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf [pdf]

tedks 11y ago
This should be required reading for aspiring cyberpunks. Assange is an archetypical agent of 5th-generation warfare, and Wikileaks is a perfect example of a Robbian superempowered group: http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2008/02/journal-on-supe.html http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2008/02... And he's winning. He might die, in horrible agony, in an Argentinian embassy, but he'll take the CIA down with him. What a time to be alive indeed.

NN88 11y ago

Why? Its obvious why at this point. * Theres a theory that WIKILEAKS has been a FSB front since 2010: * https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3pobtq/is_russia_secretly_influencing_wikileaks_i_dont/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3pobtq/is_russi... They haven't posted a SINGLE ANTI-Russian document since they threatened to leak documents in 2010 This is ONLY about Embarrassing the West. At first I was skeptical, now i'm fully convinced that Assange and crew are TOTAL useful idiots.

tinco 11y ago
There are no anti-russian documents because Assange nor any of his activists care about Russia. They care about the Western world, that's why they prod it.
- NN88 11y ago
  If this is the case, they can't claim to be objective.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    They don't claim to be objective, they claim to pass on data that is real. You don't know what they don't pass on, you don't know what they change and you can't know whether or not something is real without outside verification. Think of them as an imperfect channel that seems to present - to date at least - an insane amount of real data and the occasional manipulated video.
  - ionised 11y ago
    They are objective about the western world. I live in the western world, so that's what I care about.
- Grue3 11y ago
  Strange because Snowden lives in Russia, you'd think he'd care about his new home. Surely he cares about all the oppression that's going on in here?
11y ago