3 ms·

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 n

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

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