3 ms·

>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. O

by 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.

dleslie 10y ago
Wikileaks did not steal anyone's identity. To use another one of your tortured metaphors, it's a bit like if Wikileaks found your wallet and pinned your credit card and driver's license to the nearest telephone pole. I don't agree with most concepts of responsible disclosure; most would have Wikileaks contact the DNC, who would then likely attempt to hide their mistake. I am in favour of informing those harmed by the negligent actions of those they trusted; and so the right thing to do is to expose the donor list, as well as what data was present. Personally, I would have replaced credit card numbers with Xs, but as the CC values could no longer be considered secure I fail to see the egregious additional injury caused by revealing them. It's unkind, but not particularly beyond the harm that the DNC had already done by failing to properly secure them. Who knows who has had them, and for how long? Not the DNC, and not Wikileaks.
- mejari 10y ago
  >Wikileaks did not steal anyone's identity. To use another one of your tortured metaphors, it's a bit like if Wikileaks found your wallet and pinned your credit card and driver's license to the nearest telephone pole. Not at all. They broadcast it to the world. They are an accessory. >I don't agree with most concepts of responsible disclosure; most would have Wikileaks contact the DNC, who would then likely attempt to hide their mistake. I am in favour of informing those harmed by the negligent actions of those they trusted; and so the right thing to do is to expose the donor list, as well as what data was present. That's... just ridiculous. You could get the same result by just redacting all the private info except names. Then everyone knows but no one is put at risk. But they didn't even bother to do that. >Personally, I would have replaced credit card numbers with Xs, but as the CC values could no longer be considered secure I fail to see the egregious additional injury caused by revealing them What you personally consider to be secure has no bearing. They took private sensitive data that was not public and made it public. Just because you think that maybe it probably was already at risk is irrelevant. >but not particularly beyond the harm that the DNC had already done by failing to properly secure them How can you even try to make this point? It makes no sense. If I know your credit card info, all I have to do is assume that other people already have it so it's fine if I publish it? >Who knows who has had them, and for how long? Not the DNC, and not Wikileaks. EXACTLY. Who knows? Not you, so it's irresponsible and damaging for them to release them when it's possible no one had them.
  - dleslie 10y ago
    I see that you are in favour of security through obscurity, and I favour security through vigilance and exposure. We will forever be at an impasse.
    - mejari 10y ago
      That's not fair. I even gave you a valid scenario of exposure. But there is such a thing as irresponsible exposure that endangers people. They could easily have exposed the issues you're talking about without endangering the people and their information that is totally irrelevant to the information WikiLeaks is trying to get out.

by mejari 10y ago

dleslie 10y ago

Wikileaks did not steal anyone's identity. To use another one of your tortured metaphors, it's a bit like if Wikileaks found your wallet and pinned your credit card and driver's license to the nearest telephone pole. I don't agree with most concepts of responsible disclosure; most would have Wikileaks contact the DNC, who would then likely attempt to hide their mistake. I am in favour of informing those harmed by the negligent actions of those they trusted; and so the right thing to do is to expose the donor list, as well as what data was present. Personally, I would have replaced credit card numbers with Xs, but as the CC values could no longer be considered secure I fail to see the egregious additional injury caused by revealing them. It's unkind, but not particularly beyond the harm that the DNC had already done by failing to properly secure them. Who knows who has had them, and for how long? Not the DNC, and not Wikileaks.

mejari 10y ago
>Wikileaks did not steal anyone's identity. To use another one of your tortured metaphors, it's a bit like if Wikileaks found your wallet and pinned your credit card and driver's license to the nearest telephone pole. Not at all. They broadcast it to the world. They are an accessory. >I don't agree with most concepts of responsible disclosure; most would have Wikileaks contact the DNC, who would then likely attempt to hide their mistake. I am in favour of informing those harmed by the negligent actions of those they trusted; and so the right thing to do is to expose the donor list, as well as what data was present. That's... just ridiculous. You could get the same result by just redacting all the private info except names. Then everyone knows but no one is put at risk. But they didn't even bother to do that. >Personally, I would have replaced credit card numbers with Xs, but as the CC values could no longer be considered secure I fail to see the egregious additional injury caused by revealing them What you personally consider to be secure has no bearing. They took private sensitive data that was not public and made it public. Just because you think that maybe it probably was already at risk is irrelevant. >but not particularly beyond the harm that the DNC had already done by failing to properly secure them How can you even try to make this point? It makes no sense. If I know your credit card info, all I have to do is assume that other people already have it so it's fine if I publish it? >Who knows who has had them, and for how long? Not the DNC, and not Wikileaks. EXACTLY. Who knows? Not you, so it's irresponsible and damaging for them to release them when it's possible no one had them.
- dleslie 10y ago
  I see that you are in favour of security through obscurity, and I favour security through vigilance and exposure. We will forever be at an impasse.
  - mejari 10y ago
    That's not fair. I even gave you a valid scenario of exposure. But there is such a thing as irresponsible exposure that endangers people. They could easily have exposed the issues you're talking about without endangering the people and their information that is totally irrelevant to the information WikiLeaks is trying to get out.