7 ms·
WikiLeaks proposes tracking verified Twitter users’ homes, families and finances
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ENGNR 10y agoMuch more silliness to follow until Wikileaks is thoroughly destroyed https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5cgwau/has_wikileaks_has_been_compromised_megathread/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5cgwau/has_wiki...
- Cozumel 10y agoYup, not compromised at all. Nothing to see here, carry on!!
- ColanR 10y agoNot sure what you're referring too...?
- ycmbntrthrwaway 10y agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5cgwau/has_wikileaks_has_been_compromised_megathread/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5cgwau/has_wiki...
- rounce 10y agoHad to laugh at the opening paragraph of that thread: > I think it is high time that we address the elephant in the room. I am not saying to stop what we are doing, but we need to band together and get wikileaks to prove themselves, or we need to take everything read with a grain of salt. Surely we should be taking everything we read with a grain of salt?
- ColanR 10y agoThanks for the reddit link. Not sure if that's laughable or not. The fact a PGP sig still hasn't been used since the date of the alleged "takeover" is a very strong point against complaisance.
- gnipgnip 10y agoMashiRafael's insurance is gone, and apparently so is Assange's.
- r721 10y ago>“We are thinking of making an online database with all 'verified' twitter accounts & their family/job/financial/housing relationships,” WikiLeaks tweeted Friday. Not WikiLeaks, but "WikiLeaks Task Force" (@WLTaskForce). I'm not even sure it's widely known who exactly is behind that account, though it's interestingly a verified account itself. UPD1 After some googling it seems the account is listed as official on wikileaks.org: "Follow our official accounts @wikileaks, @wltaskforce, @communitywl and @wikileaksshop." https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html But it was added recently (after 16 Nov 2016): https://web.archive.org/web/20161116072950/https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html https://web.archive.org/web/20161116072950/https://wikileaks... (via https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5h2qqp/can_we_welcome_wltaskforce_communitywl_to_the_wl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5h2qqp/can_...) UPD2 Article about "Wikileaks Task Force": https://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikileaks-is-making-a-twitter-army-to-fight-against-misinformation https://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikileaks-is-making-a-twit... (4 Oct 2016)
- JoachimS 10y ago"though it's interestingly a verified account itself." So in the sake of transparency, they would be tracking themselves, right?
- r721 10y agoIn theory :) But I didn't even know there could be effectively anonymous verified accounts like this one. I doubt this organization is officially registered in any sense, but it is verified by Twitter. Reading https://support.twitter.com/articles/20174631 https://support.twitter.com/articles/20174631 it seems it is sufficient to have "A verified phone number, a confirmed email address, a bio, a profile photo, a header photo, a website" and also "If the account is a corporation or company account, the name reflects the real name of the corporation or company", "The profile and/or header photo reflects the person, the corporation’s branding, or the company’s branding". Looks like "copy of your official government-issued photo identification" is not needed in organization case.
- mcintyre1994 10y ago
- azinman2 10y agoWell this is horrible. This is good for the world, how?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- em3rgent0rdr 10y agoRadical transparency of the powerful/influential.
- mayneack 10y agoHard to believe we've so far from the HBGary/Palantir plot to undermine Wikileaks and Glenn Greenwald to today's Wikileaks. http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/02/11/palantir-apologizes-for-wikileaks-attack-proposal-cuts-ties-with-hbgary/#1dcb5f111345 http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/02/11/palanti...
- chvid 10y agoHow and why would they do that? The idea does not much sense reading this article.
- Analemma_ 10y ago"We have your name and address. Stop talking about the connections between Wikileaks and Putin." That's why.
- smsm42 10y agoIf Wikileaks is indeed connected to Putin, and they are intended to prosecute you for talking about it, don't you think Putin has more resources to find out where you live than Wikileaks? I mean, of this (hypothetical) tandem, I'd rather be afraid of the guy with trillions of dollars, nukes and one of the best intelligence services on the planet than of a guy that has to hide in Ecuadorian embassy.
- mtgx 10y agoEither that, or more like: "Here's why X CNN writer is supporting a war in Iran - his wife's cousin is an executive at Y weapons maker."
- matt4077 10y agoYour wife's cousin is four steps removed from you. If you believe corruption works at that distance, you're not going to find anyone to trust. Especially if you factor in that people who want to find connections somehow always find them. ("She's an environmentalist -> she hates cars -> cars need gas -> made from oil -< iran has oil -> war interrupts export -> prices rise -> fewer cars"). I'm also skeptical of the power of money to motivate people to do anything like that. If it were happening on any scale, they're doing a pretty remarkable job of hiding it.
- marcoperaza 10y agoI don't like it one bit, but they're taking the internet to its logical conclusion. At least they're only doing it for public figures it seems, for now. It is probably totally legal too. This is what radical transparency looks like, by the way. It is consistent with and logically flows from Assange's long-stated philosophy. Basically, what the crowd on this website was defending when Wikileaks first came onto the public scene. Here's what Twitter has to say about verified accounts: >What types of accounts get verified? An account may be verified if it is DETERMINED TO BE AN ACCOUNT OF PUBLIC INTEREST. Typically this includes accounts maintained by users in music, acting, fashion, government, politics, religion, journalism, media, sports, business, and other key interest areas.
- matt4077 10y agoThe criteria for "verified" status have changed recently and I'm pretty sure it now includes a group much larger than the law's definition. There are quite a few JS developers with the tick mark, for example. And I doubt they'd count as celebrities. And even for public figures, there are and/or should be (depending on jurisdiction) limits. Their family, for example, are people with their own rights, often don't fit the "public figure" definition, may be minors etc etc. I also don't remember ever defending radical transparency, and I wouldn't even characterise Assange's actions as consistent with it. Or could I have an archive of his emails, please?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- lightedman 10y ago"At least they're only doing it for public figures it seems" Public figures are those we elect and put in government service, at least that was the original intended definition. Seems we've drifted from that definition into a rather dystopian one, with Assange.
- marcoperaza 10y ago>Public figures are those we elect and put in government service The courts disagree with you on that point, also including celebrities, business leaders, athletes, etc. Position in government is only one avenue by which people exercise power or achieve fame.
- smsm42 10y agoLooks like the tweet WaPo links to was deleted. So probably WLTF realized it's kinda very bad idea. I think what they are trying to do is a standard journalistic thing of building influence network, but they managed to say it in a very creepy way and of course WaPo grabbed it and run with it.
- wonko1 10y agoYes... a world in which Sarah Palin is apologizing to Assange isn't one I understand very well. How they respond to the Trump administration when it's in power will tell us a lot about what's happening at wikileaks. But it seems like the world needs more diversity in Wikileaks-like services. I feel like they have done important work in the past, and it would be a shame for that to end.
- rokosbasilisk 10y agoits all politics. Democrats hate wikileaks when it hurts them. Republicans hate wikileaks when it hurts them
- Sephr 10y agoWikiLeaks' online presence was taken over in October, when riseup.net got an NSL to give access to the email accounts associated with the WL Twitter accounts and other WL properties. Around that time WL removed some insurance file torrent links from wikileaks.org, distributed new pre-commitment hashes, and stopped responding to PGP-encrypted email. People who work for WikiLeaks are still probably involved, but they are no longer in control. Ever since late October, their behavior across all of their Twitter accounts has been markedly different.
- dawnerd 10y agoIt's fairly obvious something happened. Their twitter feed has felt different. They've also been pretty hostile towards people asking for proof.
- 69mlgsniperdad 10y agoI was almost certain the things you're suggesting were true, however I also thought Julian assange was no longer alive, or not free/able to reach out, as did the people who came up with and spread the theories that something big went down. However this week Hannity flew to the UK and interviewed Julian Assange who is alive and well. Don't you think he might have hinted at the fact that such was the case during the interview or via an alternate channel? I'm fairly certain that the majority of the people who believed WikiLeaks was taken over or underwent a change of management/control no longer believe so since that interview, which was the first proof of life in months, and the first since the suspicious events occured.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- 69mlgsniperdad 10y agoRight, I'm only suggesting that no one might have ever become concerned that WikiLeaks lost control of their Twitter account had the same people who held that belief known Julian Assange was alive and well and not under duress. I also find it hard to believe that Julian Assange wouldn't inform everyone that such is the case. Judging by the amount of time JA spends talking about WikiLeaks' perfect track record and referencing their reliability when it comes to accuracy and trustworthiness, I would say it is one of, if not his most valuable asset; the foundation of his safety, leverage, and sustained relevance/coverage. I can't imagine he would neglect transparency there, as it would undermine his entire lifes work, discredit him, and make him irrelevant - undermining his safety, which is largely due to the public eye on him. Edit: Typo/Grammer
- moomin 10y agoSo instead of working with Chelsea Manning, they're doxxing Chelsea Manning? Once upon a time Wikileaks was about holding governments to account. Apparently that was too hard because privacy violations appear to be the theme these days.
- jondubois 10y agoI think this is a very good thing. We need more accountability from public figures. Moral fibre is a rare element among the top 1%. If they can't regulate themselves, then someone else ought to do it. We need an incentive for people to pay their fair share of taxes and to behave ethically - Protecting your public reputation is a good incentive. The law is simply useless when it comes to ethical matters - Radical transparency might be a better solution. Public figures currently have way too much control over their public image.
- r3bl 10y agoJust because someone has that blue checkmark next to their Twitter username (reminder: Twitter doesn't have public guidelines on who gets it and who doesn't) doesn't make that person a public figure.
- rokosbasilisk 10y agotwitter is by nature public. try gab.ai for more privacy.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nabla9 10y agoIf the verified Twitter user means public figures, this would be OK to certain extent (leave underage children out). Persons who place themselves in the public light through politics or voluntarily participate in the public arena have a diminished privacy rights. Tracking what they do and their connections is essential part of journalism. Somehow this comes out as slashing out from WikiLeaks. They seem to be really out of touch. Maybe because Assange is behind it.
- chvid 10y agoOk. I went and read some of the tweets this article is based on. I think what Wikileaks wants to build is a social graph of influential and powerful people (big enough names to have a blue check mark) using their tweets. Then weight and couple that with information on family relations, job, living place and so on - available from other public sources (i.e. Wikipedia biographies, LinkedIn or official websites). Sounds like an interesting idea. But man; Wikileaks is sure getting a lot of negative press. I guess if you want to play the game of politics you better start weighting your words like a politician.
- hxsatvv 10y agoWikiLeaks decided to leak documents that damaged Hillary's reputation. That means that in the tech world they have been shunned and marginalised, like everybody who didn't bitch too much about the existence of Trump. Now it doesn't matter whatever they say or do, they'll get negative press. They are blacklisted.
- rounce 10y agoNot really, I think people are more riled up about a perceived about-face regarding it's founding principles, and to seemingly target certain orgs rather than stick to what many feel it was founded to do which is impartially publicly disclose confidential government & NGO information which is in the public interest. If you purport to be holier than thou, you'd better make damn sure you at least stick to your story.
- forgottenpass 10y agoI dunno, it seems like the it's the news narrative about wikileaks doing the about-face. I'm not some defender of wikileaks or Assagne, I just don't think who they are is all that important. When I first heard of wikileaks a decade ago on slashdot, Assange was a tosser with some unpopular opinions and perspective. He also believed in the utility of releasing the entirety of source material to the public instead of a regular news outlet that limits it to the topics they have the time and interest to investigate and write. The broad strokes have remained constant even if the details haven't. Ever since then, the press has been trying to find meaning in the Wikileaks dog-and-pony show. A circus that they themselves were complicit in creating. They've been trying, and failing, to understand this guy since 2010. The muddled mass of hot takes but no real insight is what they've been dumping onto us in the meantime.
- stefantalpalaru 10y ago> To “dox” a person is to release documents related to his or her personal life in a way that potentially endangers that person's safety. No. It means to release publicly available documents (docs -> dox) about the subject of a journalistic investigation - usually by amateur journalists. When professional journalists do it, it's just called "journalism".
- redthrowaway 10y agoOr they're just a front for Russian intelligence, as has been suggested for years, as evidenced by the fact that Assange says there's no need to report on Russia because of the "free and open media" they have, as evidenced by his show on RT, as evidenced by their facilitating Snowden's defection, as evidenced by... It seems like there are a few die-hards left who thought Assange and Manning were the greatest thing ever exposes the big bad USG, and are refusing to acknowledge the obvious: wikileaks exists so the FSB can run agitprop against its geopolitical foes. Edit: I'd just like to point out the fact that all of these downvotes are flooding in at 3:00 am PST on a Friday night. Can anyone think of a timezone that might coincide with?
- bberrry 10y agoMind giving the source where Assange said that?
- confounded 10y agoSee: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of-julian-assanges-interview-went-viral-and-was-completely-false/ https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of...
- redthrowaway 10y agoLook, you either believe people like Assange, Greenwald, and Snowden are honest people, or you don't. I do not, to say the least. The three of them strike me as some of the most fundamentally dishonest people in the public sphere.
- smcl 10y agoI'm kinda fascinated - why do you think they're fundamentally dishonest? I could maybe understand you thinking this about Assange/Greenwald (I personally don't) since they're essentially reporters - so we have to rely on them accurately reporting what they have been informed by sources, and being able to judge whether the source is credible, and to elect to report on anything regardless of whether it conflicts with their viewpoints etc. But to apply the same criticism to Edward Snowden is a whole different thing altogether. He has produced reams of evidence on the practices of the US intelligence agencies, for him to be "fundamentally dishonest" would involve fabricating large chunks of that, and if I believed that then I wouldn't stop at "dishonest" I'd go with "crazy" or worse.
- ifdefdebug 10y agoIsn't privacy by obscurity just as broken as security by obscurity is? I mean, if it is possible to build such a list from publicly available data, the bad guys already should have one so why not make it public? Or are they planning on building the list from leaked data? The article doesn't talk about the origin of the data.
- danso 10y agoWhat does "broken" privacy even mean?
- ZenoArrow 10y ago>"What does "broken" privacy even mean?" "Broken" means "doesn't work". In the context of GP's post, the suggestion is that attempting privacy through obscurity doesn't work/is ineffective.
- danso 10y agoA large part of privacy is fundamentally about obscurity. If you have sex in a public park and someone tapes it, it can be put up on YouTube. If you have sex in your fenced backyard pool and someone holds their camera up over your fence to film it, you have a very good invasion of privacy lawsuit, even though your privacy had been "broken". Similarly, the burden of legal proof for libel or defamation are different for public vs private figures. An obscure YouTube vidmaker has a substantially different burden of proof than does a popular Youtuber when it comes to certain scopes of libel/defamation. Yes, there is a kind of privacy you can expect in your own home. But some right to privacy is preserved even if you go out the in public
- ZenoArrow 10y agoThe privacy being discussed in the context of this topic is online privacy. The point is that attempting to have online privacy through obscurity is increasingly ineffective. All traffic through the web is monitored, and I'd even suspect that some common methods of encryption will have been compromised (and even when they haven't been, some governments have made it clear that using VPNs and similar privacy protecting measures are close to an admission of guilt).
- robert_foss 10y agoQueue the hypocrisy from American media. They surely didn't fuzz about the NSA doing the same thing, but taking in orders of magnitude further.
- deutronium 10y agoI just found this: https://twitter.com/BethElderkin/status/817461392462807040 https://twitter.com/BethElderkin/status/817461392462807040 "Wiki leaks falsely ID's someone while trying to demonstrate why a mass dox list isn't a terrible waste of their time."
- danso 10y agoThat is just sad. It was bad enough last night when they were using buzzwords like "proximity graph" to make their data mining sound...extra cool, I guess?
- benevol 10y agoPositive interpretation: The sooner the general public realizes how stupid it is to give these companies their private information the better. Maybe then the internet can move past this phase and become more sane.
- yakubin 10y agoThis makes me lose any remains of support I've had for WikiLeaks.
- zimbatm 10y agoTwitter is a content generation engine with a seed of 140 characters. Then everyone interprets it in their own way, preferably by being outraged. Unless something tangible appears all this exercise is a big waste of time.
- heisenbit 10y agoWikileaks used to be a platform for venting information. Data that was secret and had power was laid open for consideration by anyone interested. Now it is a platform for some insiders pushing an agenda. Data is solicited, filtered and used to push in a direction. Wikileaks has become a player.
- antikaon 10y agoI think this is an absolutely hilarious troll and I congratulate Wikileaks on it. Why? This already exists. It's not just for verified Twitter users either. You have used this "database" yourself. You and your family are already in it. Wikileaks will use this "database" to raise awareness of just how dangerous it is. It will rile everyone up and create a groundswell of action to thwart it. When the outrage reaches it's peak, the name of the "database" will be revealed: It's called Google+Facebook+Twitter+LinkedIn+Reddit+Yahoo+Amazon+Apple+Youtube+Pinterest+Instagram EDIT: typo
- hzhzjsj 10y agoThe disinformation campaign against Wikileaks and Snowden is astounding. Sure neither are perfect but to claim they are Russian outfits or cia counter-counter-counter intellgence operations is tin-foil hat territory. Add this to the fact we know there are things like the 77 brigade should give you pause when seeing attacks like some of the comments here
- abrax3141 10y agoWelcome to the modern world. In the 80s we had AI Winter, now we have AI Nuclear Warfare (to be followed immediately by AI Nuclear Winter).