3 ms·

> Journalists need your technical expertise to secure their devices, set up secure drops, and understand the data coming out of the countless leaks that are sur

> Journalists need your technical expertise to secure their devices, set up secure drops, and understand the data coming out of the countless leaks that are sure to come. This strikes me as hypocrisy seeing as almost everyone, including the media, threw WikiLeaks under the bus last year.

meritt 10y ago
That is because WikiLeaks decided to become politically opportunistic with what they chose to leak and when they chose to leak it, instead of simply leaking everything immediately after receipt.
- generic_user 10y ago
  It was the content that did the damage not the timing. There was a lot of unethical and illegal activity that was exposed. Those implicated are are not fit to hold office.
  - tasty_freeze 10y ago
    Yeah, the pizza parlor really blew the lid off if things, didn't it? Get real, timing had a LOT to do with it.
  - meritt 10y ago
    I agree with you that the content was absolutely damaging. The Podesta leaks began 1 hour after Trump's pussy-grabbing video was published, and continued every single day until November 9th. The timing was absolutely strategic and politically motivated. If you still think the timing wasn't relevant, I have a bridge to sell you.
  - jimbokun 10y ago
    If there was illegal activity, where are the indictments or court cases?
- orthoganol 10y ago
  Is it because they were politically opportunistic, or because their leaks went against the media's politics? Without question Assange was against HRC and Obama. The latter kept him as a political prisoner for 6 years despite UN rulings, "War on Whistleblowers", etc., and the former had already made an appearance in Cablegate and no doubt was not going to let him walk free either. Even if there is a (legitimate) political motivation, facts and misdeeds are facts and misdeeds, and leakers should be protected regardless.
- bostik 10y ago
  I believe there is also another angle that should not be ignored. Now, I sure as hell agree with your sentiment. I just don't think it's the whole picture. In addition to trying to play a kingmaker, WL has become an unwitting subtle propaganda outlet. In an interview with Risky Business (a podcast), the infosec and opsec veteran The Grugq pointed this out. And it's an interesting chain where individually rational decisions have produced an irrational result. 1. WikiLeaks became the target of a witch hunt because they had become politically inconvenient. 2. Their resources were cut (eg. the VISA embargo), which greatly limited their ability to do good journalism. People associated with WL were routinely harrassed, which I also equate with cutting into their resources - Assange turning out to be a less-than-likeable personality further contributed to the attrition. Individuals simply started to make their own rational decisions. 3. In order to remain relevant at all, WL needed to publish more leaks. 4. Due to resources being scarce, they would have to do this in a way which carried the biggest potential payback. In other words, time the leaks to provide maximum visibility and downstream reporting. 5. Since there were less resources to expend on journalism aspect, the leaks were more and more "dump it all out, and let the audience sieve it through". Practically everyone on HN will agree that quantity over quality is a self-enforcing cycle. Surprise, surprise: downstream reporting suffers. 6. WL may have the brand name (even if their previous actions are turning the brand toxic), but are desperate to remain relevant. 7. At this point outside parties with their own propaganda motives have already tested the waters by feeding WL with minor leak archives. When WL actions show their desperation, these parties will slowly ramp up the drip in their leak feeds. 8. Grasping for straws, WL realises that the quality of the provided material is good enough to keep their brand alive and relevant. 9. Their biggest weapon is timing, but lack of resources (and possibly the timing of the leak material) means they have even less opportunities to do proper journalism. It's "dump it all out" all over again. 10. WL knows that they are being played, but they have no choice. The parties using them as their divorced propaganda outlet are also the source of their best leak material. If WL stopped publishing the leaks, they would not only lose any remaining impact but also risk alienating their remaining sources. The steps 3-9 are repeated, and 7-10 are enforced. Now, the really interesting bit in the interview was that The Grugq pointed out how steps 3-10 were inevitable even if the first two had never happened. WL was always destined to become an unwitting propaganda horn, simply by the nature of geopolitics. The need to remain relevant by any means necessary was guaranteed to result in this same chain, simply because international espionage agencies could, via third parties, flood them with more than enough low-grade but linkbaity material. After all, the parties involved in this business have been honing their propaganda distribution skills for decades if not centuries. EDIT: newlines to split each step into own paragraphs.

meritt 10y ago

That is because WikiLeaks decided to become politically opportunistic with what they chose to leak and when they chose to leak it, instead of simply leaking everything immediately after receipt.

generic_user 10y ago
It was the content that did the damage not the timing. There was a lot of unethical and illegal activity that was exposed. Those implicated are are not fit to hold office.
- tasty_freeze 10y ago
  Yeah, the pizza parlor really blew the lid off if things, didn't it? Get real, timing had a LOT to do with it.
- meritt 10y ago
  I agree with you that the content was absolutely damaging. The Podesta leaks began 1 hour after Trump's pussy-grabbing video was published, and continued every single day until November 9th. The timing was absolutely strategic and politically motivated. If you still think the timing wasn't relevant, I have a bridge to sell you.
- jimbokun 10y ago
  If there was illegal activity, where are the indictments or court cases?
orthoganol 10y ago
Is it because they were politically opportunistic, or because their leaks went against the media's politics? Without question Assange was against HRC and Obama. The latter kept him as a political prisoner for 6 years despite UN rulings, "War on Whistleblowers", etc., and the former had already made an appearance in Cablegate and no doubt was not going to let him walk free either. Even if there is a (legitimate) political motivation, facts and misdeeds are facts and misdeeds, and leakers should be protected regardless.
bostik 10y ago
I believe there is also another angle that should not be ignored. Now, I sure as hell agree with your sentiment. I just don't think it's the whole picture. In addition to trying to play a kingmaker, WL has become an unwitting subtle propaganda outlet. In an interview with Risky Business (a podcast), the infosec and opsec veteran The Grugq pointed this out. And it's an interesting chain where individually rational decisions have produced an irrational result. 1. WikiLeaks became the target of a witch hunt because they had become politically inconvenient. 2. Their resources were cut (eg. the VISA embargo), which greatly limited their ability to do good journalism. People associated with WL were routinely harrassed, which I also equate with cutting into their resources - Assange turning out to be a less-than-likeable personality further contributed to the attrition. Individuals simply started to make their own rational decisions. 3. In order to remain relevant at all, WL needed to publish more leaks. 4. Due to resources being scarce, they would have to do this in a way which carried the biggest potential payback. In other words, time the leaks to provide maximum visibility and downstream reporting. 5. Since there were less resources to expend on journalism aspect, the leaks were more and more "dump it all out, and let the audience sieve it through". Practically everyone on HN will agree that quantity over quality is a self-enforcing cycle. Surprise, surprise: downstream reporting suffers. 6. WL may have the brand name (even if their previous actions are turning the brand toxic), but are desperate to remain relevant. 7. At this point outside parties with their own propaganda motives have already tested the waters by feeding WL with minor leak archives. When WL actions show their desperation, these parties will slowly ramp up the drip in their leak feeds. 8. Grasping for straws, WL realises that the quality of the provided material is good enough to keep their brand alive and relevant. 9. Their biggest weapon is timing, but lack of resources (and possibly the timing of the leak material) means they have even less opportunities to do proper journalism. It's "dump it all out" all over again. 10. WL knows that they are being played, but they have no choice. The parties using them as their divorced propaganda outlet are also the source of their best leak material. If WL stopped publishing the leaks, they would not only lose any remaining impact but also risk alienating their remaining sources. The steps 3-9 are repeated, and 7-10 are enforced. Now, the really interesting bit in the interview was that The Grugq pointed out how steps 3-10 were inevitable even if the first two had never happened. WL was always destined to become an unwitting propaganda horn, simply by the nature of geopolitics. The need to remain relevant by any means necessary was guaranteed to result in this same chain, simply because international espionage agencies could, via third parties, flood them with more than enough low-grade but linkbaity material. After all, the parties involved in this business have been honing their propaganda distribution skills for decades if not centuries. EDIT: newlines to split each step into own paragraphs.