4 ms·
That is incorrect on both counts. They promised releases several weeks in a row before they actually released anything. And they also released social security n
by mejari 10y ago
That is incorrect on both counts. They promised releases several weeks in a row before they actually released anything. And they also released social security numbers, names and addresses for hundreds/thousands of people, so they're obviously not that concerned with protecting people. Hell, the put out the information on almost all women voters in Turkey, putting them in danger: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeynep-tufekci/wikileaks-erdogan-emails_b_11158792.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeynep-tufekci/wikileaks-erdog...
- dleslie 10y ago> They promised releases several weeks in a row before they actually released anything. So they promised releases well in advance and then released them. > And they also released social security numbers, names and addresses for hundreds/thousands of people, so they're obviously not that concerned with protecting people. That wasn't Wikileaks, it was Michael Best. Did you read the update at the top of the article you linked? From Michael Best himself: > @WikiLeaks didn't upload the #AKP files with the private info on Turkish women - I did (and they've been removed) https://twitter.com/natsecgeek/status/758059030527021056 https://twitter.com/natsecgeek/status/758059030527021056 Stop reading the Huffington Post; it's a rag.
- mejari 10y ago>So they promised releases well in advance and then released them. Are you being intentionally obtuse? They promised releases to occur each week, until eventually weeks later an actual leak came out. >That wasn't Wikileaks, it was Michael Best. Did you read the update at the top of the article you linked? Yes, did you? It shows that he passed the data to Wikileaks, who didn't do the protection of information you say they do, and just released the information. And then never took responsibility. I mean, look at their own responses to that tweet. They're denying that anything they did was even bad. I notice you also completely ignored the part about them releasing the private information of DNC donors. >Stop reading the Huffington Post; it's a rag. Stop complaining about sources when you are getting basic facts incorrect.
- dleslie 10y ago> It shows that he passed the data to Wikileaks, who didn't do the protection of information you say they do, and just released the information. Wikileaks linked to the information; it was hosted on the Internet Archive, who took it down[0]. > And then never took responsibility. It wasn't theirs to take down. The parties responsible took it down, responsibly. > They're denying that anything they did was even bad. They denied that members of the APK are an at-risk group. > I notice you also completely ignored the part about them releasing the private information of DNC donors. Because that's not the example you used. I wasn't aware you were refering to DNC donors with your accusation. 0: https://glomardisclosure.com/2016/07/26/the-who-and-how-of-the-akp-hack-dump-and-wikileaks-release/ https://glomardisclosure.com/2016/07/26/the-who-and-how-of-t...
- mejari 10y ago>Because that's not the example you used. I wasn't aware you were refering to DNC donors with your accusation. This is what I said >And they also released social security numbers, names and addresses for hundreds/thousands of people, so they're obviously not that concerned with protecting people. Sorry if that wasn't clear what I was referencing http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/22/12259258/wikileaks-leaked-democratic-national-committee-emails-personal-information http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/22/12259258/wikileaks-leaked-...