6 ms·

>> after hearing about the Russian hacks of the DNC Fictions built upon fictions. Assange has stated again in another interview, airing tonight, that it wasn'

>> after hearing about the Russian hacks of the DNC Fictions built upon fictions. Assange has stated again in another interview, airing tonight, that it wasn't Russia. It wasn't any 'state' actor. "Yes. We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party." The same people that took the fantastic and easily debunked claims of a power company and amplified it into a diplomatic dispute with Russia will not emphasize this; if they can't somehow discredit it then they'll bury it.

pjc50 10y ago
He's stated that, but why should we believe him and not believe all the various people who have said the opposite? Russian intelligence are presumably quite capable of laundering it through an intermediary, which would make his statement literally true but misleading.
- alyx 10y ago
  Because unlike the US government, WikiLeaks has a more accurate/transparent track record?
  - skybrian 10y ago
    That argument only works if you trust WikiLeaks and a lot of people don't.
    - rokosbasilisk 10y ago
      Alot of people also do trust wikileaks.
    - zeroer 10y ago
      When reasoning with incomplete information, things like history of credibility have to be taken into account. US Intelligence services have been caught in lie after lie. Wikileaks has never been caught lying. Trust is not binary. You don't have to "trust" WikiLeaks to wonder if there's something sketchy going on.
      - skybrian 10y ago
        Since I don't trust anyone on this issue, my only conclusion is that I don't know what's going on here, and I'm not going to pretend to be an instant expert. (In particular, I don't trust Wikileaks to know whether they are being played or not. Attribution seems difficult.)
        zeroer 10y ago
        It's by design that you don't know what's going on here.
        skybrian 10y ago
        Yes, that's how it works. It's still the right conclusion, particularly when you're not paying close attention.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    What track record does Wikileaks have of positively ID'ing their sources? To my knowledge the opposite is true.
- topspin 10y ago
  I suspect that is precisely the line that WaPo will adopt should they bother to address what Assange has said. They'll scrutinize his ability to know and verify what he is saying and they'll point out all the opposing arguments. If only WaPo had applied this sort of scrutiny and skepticism to their 'Russians hacked the power system' story; millions of people wouldn't be misled today and perhaps the White House wouldn't be harassing Russian diplomats.
  - openasocket 10y ago
    Does that timeline add up? The announcement about the diplomats was made Thursday, and I believe the original WaPo article was published on Saturday. You could blame the WaPo for being hasty, but they certainly aren't the reason Russian diplomats are being expelled.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  > why should we believe him and not believe all the various people who have said the opposite? because he might actually know? it was his organization that received the documents, after all. is he lying about it? possibly, but what incentive does he have to lie about it? was he deceived himself? possibly, but if that's the rabbit hole you're going down than what would establish confidence that _any_ claim on this subject is a truthful one? because the various people claiming the opposite have a clear political agenda that is consistent with the narrative they have been aggressively promulgating through a complicit media? Assange isn't the one trying to start a new cold war. the Clinton faction of the state department and the CIA on the other hand...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > because the various people claiming the opposite have a clear political agenda What is CrowdStrike's "clear political agenda" and where is evidence of it?
akhilcacharya 10y ago
> Assange has stated again in another interview, airing tonight, that it wasn't Russia. It wasn't any 'state' actor. I'm old enough to remember when a Russian disinformation campaign also said that MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainian military... I'll trust the experts in this case, thanks.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Assange has stated again in another interview, airing tonight, that it wasn't Russia. After it came out from a number of sources, starting with CrowdStrike and later including the US intelligence community that the leaks were a Russian intelligence operation, WikiLeaks has proffered a shifting set of explanations, including for a while intimating that there was no hacking involved and that their source was an insider leak. Obviously, WikiLeaks has an interest in not being seen as a pawn or dupe of Russia's intelligence services; OTOH, there's no shared common interest between the various parties that have attributes the hack to Russia in so doing if it is false.
snowwrestler 10y ago
Assange has no idea where the info came from--that's the whole fucking point of Wikileaks, to create a layer of anonymity so that information can be leaked without endangering whistleblowers.

pjc50 10y ago

He's stated that, but why should we believe him and not believe all the various people who have said the opposite? Russian intelligence are presumably quite capable of laundering it through an intermediary, which would make his statement literally true but misleading.

alyx 10y ago
Because unlike the US government, WikiLeaks has a more accurate/transparent track record?
- skybrian 10y ago
  That argument only works if you trust WikiLeaks and a lot of people don't.
  - rokosbasilisk 10y ago
    Alot of people also do trust wikileaks.
  - zeroer 10y ago
    When reasoning with incomplete information, things like history of credibility have to be taken into account. US Intelligence services have been caught in lie after lie. Wikileaks has never been caught lying. Trust is not binary. You don't have to "trust" WikiLeaks to wonder if there's something sketchy going on.
    - skybrian 10y ago
      Since I don't trust anyone on this issue, my only conclusion is that I don't know what's going on here, and I'm not going to pretend to be an instant expert. (In particular, I don't trust Wikileaks to know whether they are being played or not. Attribution seems difficult.)
      - zeroer 10y ago
        It's by design that you don't know what's going on here.
        skybrian 10y ago
        Yes, that's how it works. It's still the right conclusion, particularly when you're not paying close attention.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  What track record does Wikileaks have of positively ID'ing their sources? To my knowledge the opposite is true.
topspin 10y ago
I suspect that is precisely the line that WaPo will adopt should they bother to address what Assange has said. They'll scrutinize his ability to know and verify what he is saying and they'll point out all the opposing arguments. If only WaPo had applied this sort of scrutiny and skepticism to their 'Russians hacked the power system' story; millions of people wouldn't be misled today and perhaps the White House wouldn't be harassing Russian diplomats.
- openasocket 10y ago
  Does that timeline add up? The announcement about the diplomats was made Thursday, and I believe the original WaPo article was published on Saturday. You could blame the WaPo for being hasty, but they certainly aren't the reason Russian diplomats are being expelled.
metaphorm 10y ago
> why should we believe him and not believe all the various people who have said the opposite? because he might actually know? it was his organization that received the documents, after all. is he lying about it? possibly, but what incentive does he have to lie about it? was he deceived himself? possibly, but if that's the rabbit hole you're going down than what would establish confidence that _any_ claim on this subject is a truthful one? because the various people claiming the opposite have a clear political agenda that is consistent with the narrative they have been aggressively promulgating through a complicit media? Assange isn't the one trying to start a new cold war. the Clinton faction of the state department and the CIA on the other hand...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > because the various people claiming the opposite have a clear political agenda What is CrowdStrike's "clear political agenda" and where is evidence of it?

akhilcacharya 10y ago

> Assange has stated again in another interview, airing tonight, that it wasn't Russia. It wasn't any 'state' actor. I'm old enough to remember when a Russian disinformation campaign also said that MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainian military... I'll trust the experts in this case, thanks.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Assange has stated again in another interview, airing tonight, that it wasn't Russia. After it came out from a number of sources, starting with CrowdStrike and later including the US intelligence community that the leaks were a Russian intelligence operation, WikiLeaks has proffered a shifting set of explanations, including for a while intimating that there was no hacking involved and that their source was an insider leak. Obviously, WikiLeaks has an interest in not being seen as a pawn or dupe of Russia's intelligence services; OTOH, there's no shared common interest between the various parties that have attributes the hack to Russia in so doing if it is false.

snowwrestler 10y ago

Assange has no idea where the info came from--that's the whole fucking point of Wikileaks, to create a layer of anonymity so that information can be leaked without endangering whistleblowers.