5 ms·

I think you're taking Assange's words out of context. He was talking about the release itself, in that it showed how the DNC actively worked to hamper Bernie's

by trendia 10y ago

I think you're taking Assange's words out of context. He was talking about the release itself, in that it showed how the DNC actively worked to hamper Bernie's efforts despite being a "neutral" organization. (Neutrality is one of the conditions for the DNC to receive tax breaks for their convention). > Why not delete malware from your servers once a security researcher has located it for you? Assange has repeatedly said that they do not filter or edit in any way the contents of their leaks. That means that they don't remove credit card information, social security numbers, or malware. Is that a good practice? Well, it depends on what the goal is. Wikileaks has the stated goal of increasing transparency in the government. They could release an edited version and achieve transparency, but editing the contents would mean that the documents are no longer "pristine" in the sense that they have not been altered in any way. This would make a legal process depending on these documents more difficult: A jury may ask themselves whether other things have been removed -- did Wikileaks also remove any content that would affect their decision? Thus, refusing to edit the content fits with another goal other than just increasing transparency: to do so in a way that the documents can be used in a legal setting with no question of their veracity.

leephillips 10y ago
"I think you're taking Assange's words out of context" I don't believe so, but people can watch the interview and come to their own conclusions. The question was put very deliberately and specifically by Maher, who asked if private people's personal information was "fair game".
- grandalf 10y ago
  To the extent that WL is still willing to publish some personal information, it's much the same as the civilian casualties that result from drone attacks. It is deemed to be an acceptable consequence of the action.
  - leephillips 10y ago
    I guess this would be a good analogy if it were trivially easy for the President to bring the civilian casualties back to life, but he preferred not to, and said that killing them was "good fun".
    - trendia 10y ago
      I think comparing releasing of personal information to civilian deaths is a bit of a stretch. Especially when Wikileaks may have the potential to increase transparency and make politicians more reluctant to allow such civilian casualties.
      - grandalf 10y ago
        > Especially when Wikileaks may have the potential to increase transparency and make politicians more reluctant to allow such civilian casualties. Exactly, that is the actual punchline of my argument.
devin 10y ago
> Assange has repeatedly said that they do not filter or edit in any way the contents of their leaks. That means that they don't remove credit card information, social security numbers, or malware. This is not true. They redacted all but the last 4 digits of the credit card numbers. > They could release an edited version and achieve transparency, but... They _do_ edit. They removed all but the last 4 digits on credit card numbers. So, they edit in the ways they deem appropriate. I think the consensus is that generally, their extremely limited (and IMO, irresponsible) redaction policy does pose a threat to innocent people. The argument against responsible redaction seems to be: "Well, who knows where that social security number may lead!" Under this line of reasoning, _everything_ is fair game, and I find that abhorrent. If an innocent photo were discovered in those emails of a naked child, say the son or daughter of someone working for the campaign, you're telling me that it should be included in the archive simply to protect the sanctity of the dump? Puh-lease. Transparency is important, but not at the risk of our own humanity.
- leephillips 10y ago
  I believe that in the cases where only the last four digits were in the record, that was not due to Wikileaks' redaction - that's just what was in the file. They did not do anything to the SS numbers, for example.

by trendia 10y ago

leephillips 10y ago

"I think you're taking Assange's words out of context" I don't believe so, but people can watch the interview and come to their own conclusions. The question was put very deliberately and specifically by Maher, who asked if private people's personal information was "fair game".

grandalf 10y ago
To the extent that WL is still willing to publish some personal information, it's much the same as the civilian casualties that result from drone attacks. It is deemed to be an acceptable consequence of the action.
- leephillips 10y ago
  I guess this would be a good analogy if it were trivially easy for the President to bring the civilian casualties back to life, but he preferred not to, and said that killing them was "good fun".
  - trendia 10y ago
    I think comparing releasing of personal information to civilian deaths is a bit of a stretch. Especially when Wikileaks may have the potential to increase transparency and make politicians more reluctant to allow such civilian casualties.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      > Especially when Wikileaks may have the potential to increase transparency and make politicians more reluctant to allow such civilian casualties. Exactly, that is the actual punchline of my argument.

devin 10y ago

> Assange has repeatedly said that they do not filter or edit in any way the contents of their leaks. That means that they don't remove credit card information, social security numbers, or malware. This is not true. They redacted all but the last 4 digits of the credit card numbers. > They could release an edited version and achieve transparency, but... They _do_ edit. They removed all but the last 4 digits on credit card numbers. So, they edit in the ways they deem appropriate. I think the consensus is that generally, their extremely limited (and IMO, irresponsible) redaction policy does pose a threat to innocent people. The argument against responsible redaction seems to be: "Well, who knows where that social security number may lead!" Under this line of reasoning, _everything_ is fair game, and I find that abhorrent. If an innocent photo were discovered in those emails of a naked child, say the son or daughter of someone working for the campaign, you're telling me that it should be included in the archive simply to protect the sanctity of the dump? Puh-lease. Transparency is important, but not at the risk of our own humanity.

leephillips 10y ago
I believe that in the cases where only the last four digits were in the record, that was not due to Wikileaks' redaction - that's just what was in the file. They did not do anything to the SS numbers, for example.