4 ms·

>So they promised releases well in advance and then released them. Are you being intentionally obtuse? They promised releases to occur each week, until eventua

by 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-...
  - dleslie 10y ago
    At least now the donors know that the DNC passes around their Credit Card and Social Security information through... Email. Yikes.
    - mejari 10y ago
      So, completely deflecting from the point. Does that mean you've given up trying to defend WikiLeaks' actions?
      - dleslie 10y ago
        I don't see that there's anything to defend, in this thread. The persons who need to defend their actions are the DNC, who sent personal information over plaintext. Don't shoot the messenger.
        mejari 10y ago
        So, if I have my credit card sitting on my kitchen counter, and you come in and steal it, it's my fault for not keeping it more secure in my home?
        dleslie 10y ago
        Email isn't assured to remain on trusted servers while in transit over the 'net. Moreover, if you had a stack of printouts containing your customer's credit card information sitting on your counter while you left your front door wide open, and _that_ was stolen, I would consider that you had improperly cared for the private information of your customers.
        mejari 10y ago
        >Email isn't assured to remain on trusted servers while in transit over the 'net. Nothing is assured to remain safe. >Moreover, if you had a stack of printouts containing your customer's credit card information sitting on your counter while you left your front door wide open, and _that_ was stolen, I would consider that you had improperly cared for the private information of your customers. You have stopped trying to defend WikiLeaks and put all the blame on the DNC. Even if I grant you all of this, that still doesn't abdicate the responsibility of the people who took the data, or the people releasing the data. Taking someone else's private data, even if they made it easy for you to do, and broadcasting it to the world, putting people at risk and exposing their private information unrelated to any government transparency goal you may have, is irresponsible and dangerous.

by mejari 10y ago

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-...
- dleslie 10y ago
  At least now the donors know that the DNC passes around their Credit Card and Social Security information through... Email. Yikes.
  - mejari 10y ago
    So, completely deflecting from the point. Does that mean you've given up trying to defend WikiLeaks' actions?
    - dleslie 10y ago
      I don't see that there's anything to defend, in this thread. The persons who need to defend their actions are the DNC, who sent personal information over plaintext. Don't shoot the messenger.
      - mejari 10y ago
        So, if I have my credit card sitting on my kitchen counter, and you come in and steal it, it's my fault for not keeping it more secure in my home?
        dleslie 10y ago
        Email isn't assured to remain on trusted servers while in transit over the 'net. Moreover, if you had a stack of printouts containing your customer's credit card information sitting on your counter while you left your front door wide open, and _that_ was stolen, I would consider that you had improperly cared for the private information of your customers.
        mejari 10y ago
        >Email isn't assured to remain on trusted servers while in transit over the 'net. Nothing is assured to remain safe. >Moreover, if you had a stack of printouts containing your customer's credit card information sitting on your counter while you left your front door wide open, and _that_ was stolen, I would consider that you had improperly cared for the private information of your customers. You have stopped trying to defend WikiLeaks and put all the blame on the DNC. Even if I grant you all of this, that still doesn't abdicate the responsibility of the people who took the data, or the people releasing the data. Taking someone else's private data, even if they made it easy for you to do, and broadcasting it to the world, putting people at risk and exposing their private information unrelated to any government transparency goal you may have, is irresponsible and dangerous.