3 ms·

So, completely deflecting from the point. Does that mean you've given up trying to defend WikiLeaks' actions?

by mejari 10y ago

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.
      - dleslie 10y ago
        I made it fairly clear that I see nothing in this thread for which Wikileaks need be defended. The DNC put its donors at risk by engaging in ludicrously unsafe storage practices for their private information. Someone, who was not Wikileaks, made off with that information as a result. Wikileaks provided the information when it received it; but in no way can the donors be certain that Wikileaks is the only party who received the stolen information. Wikileaks did those donors a favour by declaring to the world that their private information was stored and transferred irresponsibly by the DNC. Every one of those donors should now immediately contact the proper authorities to protect themselves from credit card and identity fraud. That agony is upon them as a direct result of the irresponsible practices of the DNC, and it is only because of the actions of Wikileaks that they are now aware that they are at risk.
        mejari 10y ago
        >I made it fairly clear that I see nothing in this thread for which Wikileaks need be defended. And I have pointed out that they actively put people at risk. Of course, you deflect it onto the DNC, as evidence by: >The DNC put its donors at risk by engaging in ludicrously unsafe storage practices for their private information. Someone, who was not Wikileaks, made off with that information as a result. And WikiLeaks made that information publicly available, without any effort made to protect individuals. That is dangerous and irresponsible. If I leave my wallet on the sidewalk, whatever claims of negligence you want to level at me it's still morally wrong (and illegal) for you to take it and use it to steal my identity. >Wikileaks did those donors a favour by declaring to the world that their private information was stored and transferred irresponsibly by the DNC. We're on Hacker News, so I'm hoping you're at least somewhat familiar with the term Responsible Disclosure? If someone discovers a vulnerability in a banking website, you think the best way to help their customers is to make the vulnerability immediately available to the whole world? They "helped" these donors by making their private information public? That's just straight up delusional, to completely flip reality on it's head just to support a group you like. >That agony is upon them as a direct result of the irresponsible practices of the DNC And the irresponsible actions of WikiLeaks.

So, completely deflecting from the point. Does that mean you've given up trying to defend WikiLeaks' actions?

by mejari 10y ago

So, completely deflecting from the point. Does that mean you've given up trying to defend WikiLeaks' actions?

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.
    - dleslie 10y ago
      I made it fairly clear that I see nothing in this thread for which Wikileaks need be defended. The DNC put its donors at risk by engaging in ludicrously unsafe storage practices for their private information. Someone, who was not Wikileaks, made off with that information as a result. Wikileaks provided the information when it received it; but in no way can the donors be certain that Wikileaks is the only party who received the stolen information. Wikileaks did those donors a favour by declaring to the world that their private information was stored and transferred irresponsibly by the DNC. Every one of those donors should now immediately contact the proper authorities to protect themselves from credit card and identity fraud. That agony is upon them as a direct result of the irresponsible practices of the DNC, and it is only because of the actions of Wikileaks that they are now aware that they are at risk.
      - mejari 10y ago
        >I made it fairly clear that I see nothing in this thread for which Wikileaks need be defended. And I have pointed out that they actively put people at risk. Of course, you deflect it onto the DNC, as evidence by: >The DNC put its donors at risk by engaging in ludicrously unsafe storage practices for their private information. Someone, who was not Wikileaks, made off with that information as a result. And WikiLeaks made that information publicly available, without any effort made to protect individuals. That is dangerous and irresponsible. If I leave my wallet on the sidewalk, whatever claims of negligence you want to level at me it's still morally wrong (and illegal) for you to take it and use it to steal my identity. >Wikileaks did those donors a favour by declaring to the world that their private information was stored and transferred irresponsibly by the DNC. We're on Hacker News, so I'm hoping you're at least somewhat familiar with the term Responsible Disclosure? If someone discovers a vulnerability in a banking website, you think the best way to help their customers is to make the vulnerability immediately available to the whole world? They "helped" these donors by making their private information public? That's just straight up delusional, to completely flip reality on it's head just to support a group you like. >That agony is upon them as a direct result of the irresponsible practices of the DNC And the irresponsible actions of WikiLeaks.