7 ms·

For the purpose of devil's advocate in this, I think it's possible to state truths and still be misleading and/or distracting from another narrative. Just becau

For the purpose of devil's advocate in this, I think it's possible to state truths and still be misleading and/or distracting from another narrative. Just because something is true doesn't necessarily explain what the motive is for releasing that information. It's certainly healthy to have at least a shadow of a doubt as to what WikiLeaks's motivations are when it's already shown that it can either restrain itself from leaks or that it can falsify the existence of leaks.[0] [0] In 2010, WikiLeaks declared to the public the intent to publish docs alleging significant Russian corruption. It was also picked up by a Russian newspaper that reported to be working with WikiLeaks. However, nothing happened and the topic has been untouched since.

tlow 10y ago
"In fact, the Devil's Advocate may be the biggest innovation killer in America today. "[1] [1] Tom Kelley, co-founder of Ideo as in '10 Faces of Innovation'
- xapata 10y ago
  Perhaps I'm confused, but this seems like a non-sequitur. We're not discussing innovation.
  - guest 10y ago
    I think the point being made is that the devil's advocate brought out the norm to mobilise for every contingency (not that innovation won't suffer, which is obvious as misstrust rises) and that it can be used to rhetorically balance two points of view that are not equal (or two questionable actions). In general: Ownership of information and facts are key points in the overall discussion here, if something is known it can be manipulated (just as they discuss above). Defensive patenting could be achieved, or releasing news of something to knock away at funding for its continuation... One example how it could be relevant in particular to the general discussion is how the software and partially hardware has been kept by CIA to formally avoid reprecussions from good honest people.
    - tlow 10y ago
      I am not always able to fully elucidate my meaning. I never post without a point.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
caf 10y ago
I think it's possible to state truths and still be misleading and/or distracting from another narrative. Indeed. The canonical example of this is releasing privately-commissioned polls. The data released can be a perfectly true reflection of the poll done, but if you are only choosing to release the polls that tell the story you want to tell, then the result is still going to be biased.
redahs 10y ago
We also know that Mr. Assange did lie about something in the past, his repeated claims that John Podesta's gmail password was 'password': http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jan/06/jesse-watters/claim-john-podestas-email-password-was-password-la/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jan/06/...
- elif 10y ago
  From your link: "a staffer tells Podesta that his Windows 8 login on what appears to be a new work computer is username: jpodesta and password: p@ssw0rd."
  - redahs 10y ago
    A windows 8 password is not a gmail password.
- routelastresort 10y ago
  PolitiFact: "completely unbiased" goalpost mover. His password was an iteration of 'password' - e.g. no real difference.
  - vitus 10y ago
    Um, his win8 login password being a variation of password at some point doesn't automatically imply that his gmail password was "password". I thought it was widely accepted that Podesta was the victim of a spearphishing attack (coupled with bad advice from IT), rather than just "hacked" via password-guessing.
    - Natsu 10y ago
      A few points: * Yes, lots of evidence says that Podesta did give his password to a hacker the spear phishing email you mention. The email dump cuts off soon after this event, the phishing bit.ly link was visited then according to the stats page, and we can see the phishing email here: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899 * This appears to be a quote of someone speaking, I think it's pretty reasonable not to pronounce the @. All common variations on password are equally vulnerable to password guessing programs. There's a rule to use l33t speak in JTR and many other common programs. * You can make a GMail account with the password p@ssword, something else they don't mention, choosing instead to go with a literal interpretation. * It doesn't seem to mention that he also lost his phone in a DC cab, which is another possible source of leaks. * They never appear consider whether or not the person who gave the emails to Wikileaks told them Podesta's password, they just say there's no evidence for them to verify, other than Gmail rejecting a password of 'password' (but not p@ssword), after which they rate that claim as false.
drharby 10y ago
Strongly concur. Ask any military officer who is a ring knocker; telling a 100% truthful narrative in such a manner as to provide a false narrative is still grounds for breaking the spirit of the honor code, and thus grounds for disenrollment.
- vonklaus 10y ago
  Ring knocker?
  - matt_wulfeck 10y ago
    Academy graduate.
- jacoblambda 10y ago
  can concur, the honour code definitely cares more about intent than truthfulness
  - marmot777 10y ago
    Intent matters. That's why the law will put you in prison for fewer years for texting and killing someone with your car than if you planned out the murder.
- TheRealDunkirk 10y ago
  Reminds me of working with someone who was a devout Christian. They'd never tell a lie, but were more than happy to give you just enough of the truth to let you walk away with an understanding that was completely the opposite of what had happened. After seeing this a couple times, I realized that there was a material difference between always telling the truth, and actually being honest.
TAForObvReasons 10y ago
Allegedly WL did not release every email they had from the Syria leak. While every email released may be legitimate, the omission of emails pertaining to russia creates a narrative. Wikileaks may be telling the truth but it's far from clear whether they are telling the whole truth. And in between "truth" and "whole truth" there's a lot of room to shape the narrative
- alehul 10y ago
  It's known that WL will often save some of the worst leaks as an 'insurance' against retaliation from the entity the leaks pertain to. It's likely there's aspects they're holding back from this leak as well, if they don't already hold enough over the U.S. gov.
  - erikbye 10y ago
    They have already stated in black and white that they have held back a lot concerning this release; due to various concerns. They are completely open about that. A lot of the stuff they keep to themselves can be used as collateral, like all the names they redact, operational details, etc, but I think they would quickly find themselves in an even more dangerous game than they are now, if they started to exploit these possibilities.
    - samstave 10y ago
      uhm... what are the current speculations as to what they may be holding back?
      - mirimir 10y ago
        It's Manning stuff, I think. And it's not that they're "holding back" stuff. It's been torrented, but encrypted.
- edblarney 10y ago
  If Wikileaks is in any way editorializing the information, that is not specifically related to things like 'redaction of names to not put specific lives at risk' - then it is existentially damaging to their credibility. It's not just 'shaping narrative' - it's 'creating it'. I'm not for or against the very nature of Wikileaks - but I'm pointing out that editorialization is quite fundamentally bad - for an organization like them. The 'best leaks' were the ones in concert with Guardian, NYT and Spiegel - that way they had a lot of transparency, a lot of eyes on it, and some people who could agree to redact specific names without changing the nature of the information. Cutting out 'Russian related material' is really quite a bad thing. Further interesting point: the news if fairly minimized at CNN, Fox etc.. No big headlines. Also is the fact that Assange was trying to 'hand himself over' to authorities during the election. He may have been trying to use this potential leak as leverage. Who knows. It's all so mysterious ...
alehul 10y ago
Assange outlined his goals [1] a while ago in regards to exposing secrets, and I think Wikileaks is staying in line with those rather well. It essentially states that they'll leak whatever they receive, and try to enforce a kind of 'secrecy tax' on governments/parties/organizations that refuse to be transparent via forcing them into less effective means of communication and overall less use of technology. Additionally, this may be subjective, but Assange's story and personality makes him seem quite steadfast in these beliefs. [1] http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf
- marmot777 10y ago
  Why are leaks from the Russian Federation so conspicuously absent? When it comes down to it, WL is a public relations and marketing agency for leakers who want the media to notice their handiwork. If you leaked something (document dump style) today there's a fair chance nobody would pay any attention to your claim to have this or that trove of documents so you'd need an agent. Who are you gonna call? I find it impossible to believe there are never any significant leaks from the Russian Federation. I think the problem is the dominant PR agency in that space won't work with you if you're doing anything that might harm Russian interests.
  - netsharc 10y ago
    But your claim is based on your faith that you "find it impossible to believe...". They did say they've changed to a computer-free environment after the Snowden leaks. Or maybe Russian would-be leakers know the stakes are higher for them than for American leakers, because they can get tea with a portion of Polonium.
    - marmot777 10y ago
      Possibly but the consequences of leaking secret (classified) information is pretty bad in both the U.S. and Russia. I think having to flee to Russia with no option to leave that country for the rest of your life to suck pretty bad. Snowden says he'd gladly come home to face trial provided he's offered a fair trial. So he'd risk it all for a fair trial but U.S. officials won't give him one.
wallace_f 10y ago
> For the purpose of devil's advocate in this, I think it's possible to state truths and still be misleading and/or distracting from another narrative. I think while that's correct, we shouldn't let it distract our attention to the fact that transparency in government/democracy is good for the people, especially the working class.
marmot777 10y ago
Whether something is true or not is a separate question from whether they are neutral or not. Whoever twisted a discussion of bias into a binary question of truth vs. lies, muddled the question to the point where clear thinking about it would be impossible. Bias and truth are separate issues. You can be a lying bastard who lies to harm a specific person or entity and you can be a strict adherent to truth with the exact same motives.
rand83746 10y ago
God, I wish HN had a more convenient downvote button.
- wegi 10y ago
  Then you should change to reddit. The spirit of Hacker News encourages you to argue not to blindly downvote everyone that doesn't have the same opinion.
- i336_ 10y ago
  It becomes available after sufficient karma is gained. It took me just over 6 months.
erikbye 10y ago
Yes, exactly: there is no inherent conflict or contradiction in pushing truth (and especially only parts of it, manipulating by omission or redaction) and having an agenda. There are many ways in which you can manipulate e.g. public perceptions and policy with publishing the "right" truths at the right time. Though, I am not of the opinion that WikiLeaks has a hidden agenda or is controlled by a third party. But, neither would I be shocked to learn such a thing.

tlow 10y ago

"In fact, the Devil's Advocate may be the biggest innovation killer in America today. "[1] [1] Tom Kelley, co-founder of Ideo as in '10 Faces of Innovation'

xapata 10y ago
Perhaps I'm confused, but this seems like a non-sequitur. We're not discussing innovation.
- guest 10y ago
  I think the point being made is that the devil's advocate brought out the norm to mobilise for every contingency (not that innovation won't suffer, which is obvious as misstrust rises) and that it can be used to rhetorically balance two points of view that are not equal (or two questionable actions). In general: Ownership of information and facts are key points in the overall discussion here, if something is known it can be manipulated (just as they discuss above). Defensive patenting could be achieved, or releasing news of something to knock away at funding for its continuation... One example how it could be relevant in particular to the general discussion is how the software and partially hardware has been kept by CIA to formally avoid reprecussions from good honest people.
  - tlow 10y ago
    I am not always able to fully elucidate my meaning. I never post without a point.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

caf 10y ago

I think it's possible to state truths and still be misleading and/or distracting from another narrative. Indeed. The canonical example of this is releasing privately-commissioned polls. The data released can be a perfectly true reflection of the poll done, but if you are only choosing to release the polls that tell the story you want to tell, then the result is still going to be biased.

redahs 10y ago

We also know that Mr. Assange did lie about something in the past, his repeated claims that John Podesta's gmail password was 'password': http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jan/06/jesse-watters/claim-john-podestas-email-password-was-password-la/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jan/06/...

elif 10y ago
From your link: "a staffer tells Podesta that his Windows 8 login on what appears to be a new work computer is username: jpodesta and password: p@ssw0rd."
- redahs 10y ago
  A windows 8 password is not a gmail password.
routelastresort 10y ago
PolitiFact: "completely unbiased" goalpost mover. His password was an iteration of 'password' - e.g. no real difference.
- vitus 10y ago
  Um, his win8 login password being a variation of password at some point doesn't automatically imply that his gmail password was "password". I thought it was widely accepted that Podesta was the victim of a spearphishing attack (coupled with bad advice from IT), rather than just "hacked" via password-guessing.
  - Natsu 10y ago
    A few points: * Yes, lots of evidence says that Podesta did give his password to a hacker the spear phishing email you mention. The email dump cuts off soon after this event, the phishing bit.ly link was visited then according to the stats page, and we can see the phishing email here: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899 * This appears to be a quote of someone speaking, I think it's pretty reasonable not to pronounce the @. All common variations on password are equally vulnerable to password guessing programs. There's a rule to use l33t speak in JTR and many other common programs. * You can make a GMail account with the password p@ssword, something else they don't mention, choosing instead to go with a literal interpretation. * It doesn't seem to mention that he also lost his phone in a DC cab, which is another possible source of leaks. * They never appear consider whether or not the person who gave the emails to Wikileaks told them Podesta's password, they just say there's no evidence for them to verify, other than Gmail rejecting a password of 'password' (but not p@ssword), after which they rate that claim as false.

drharby 10y ago

Strongly concur. Ask any military officer who is a ring knocker; telling a 100% truthful narrative in such a manner as to provide a false narrative is still grounds for breaking the spirit of the honor code, and thus grounds for disenrollment.

vonklaus 10y ago
Ring knocker?
- matt_wulfeck 10y ago
  Academy graduate.
jacoblambda 10y ago
can concur, the honour code definitely cares more about intent than truthfulness
- marmot777 10y ago
  Intent matters. That's why the law will put you in prison for fewer years for texting and killing someone with your car than if you planned out the murder.
TheRealDunkirk 10y ago
Reminds me of working with someone who was a devout Christian. They'd never tell a lie, but were more than happy to give you just enough of the truth to let you walk away with an understanding that was completely the opposite of what had happened. After seeing this a couple times, I realized that there was a material difference between always telling the truth, and actually being honest.

TAForObvReasons 10y ago

Allegedly WL did not release every email they had from the Syria leak. While every email released may be legitimate, the omission of emails pertaining to russia creates a narrative. Wikileaks may be telling the truth but it's far from clear whether they are telling the whole truth. And in between "truth" and "whole truth" there's a lot of room to shape the narrative

alehul 10y ago
It's known that WL will often save some of the worst leaks as an 'insurance' against retaliation from the entity the leaks pertain to. It's likely there's aspects they're holding back from this leak as well, if they don't already hold enough over the U.S. gov.
- erikbye 10y ago
  They have already stated in black and white that they have held back a lot concerning this release; due to various concerns. They are completely open about that. A lot of the stuff they keep to themselves can be used as collateral, like all the names they redact, operational details, etc, but I think they would quickly find themselves in an even more dangerous game than they are now, if they started to exploit these possibilities.
  - samstave 10y ago
    uhm... what are the current speculations as to what they may be holding back?
    - mirimir 10y ago
      It's Manning stuff, I think. And it's not that they're "holding back" stuff. It's been torrented, but encrypted.
edblarney 10y ago
If Wikileaks is in any way editorializing the information, that is not specifically related to things like 'redaction of names to not put specific lives at risk' - then it is existentially damaging to their credibility. It's not just 'shaping narrative' - it's 'creating it'. I'm not for or against the very nature of Wikileaks - but I'm pointing out that editorialization is quite fundamentally bad - for an organization like them. The 'best leaks' were the ones in concert with Guardian, NYT and Spiegel - that way they had a lot of transparency, a lot of eyes on it, and some people who could agree to redact specific names without changing the nature of the information. Cutting out 'Russian related material' is really quite a bad thing. Further interesting point: the news if fairly minimized at CNN, Fox etc.. No big headlines. Also is the fact that Assange was trying to 'hand himself over' to authorities during the election. He may have been trying to use this potential leak as leverage. Who knows. It's all so mysterious ...

alehul 10y ago

Assange outlined his goals [1] a while ago in regards to exposing secrets, and I think Wikileaks is staying in line with those rather well. It essentially states that they'll leak whatever they receive, and try to enforce a kind of 'secrecy tax' on governments/parties/organizations that refuse to be transparent via forcing them into less effective means of communication and overall less use of technology. Additionally, this may be subjective, but Assange's story and personality makes him seem quite steadfast in these beliefs. [1] http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

marmot777 10y ago
Why are leaks from the Russian Federation so conspicuously absent? When it comes down to it, WL is a public relations and marketing agency for leakers who want the media to notice their handiwork. If you leaked something (document dump style) today there's a fair chance nobody would pay any attention to your claim to have this or that trove of documents so you'd need an agent. Who are you gonna call? I find it impossible to believe there are never any significant leaks from the Russian Federation. I think the problem is the dominant PR agency in that space won't work with you if you're doing anything that might harm Russian interests.
- netsharc 10y ago
  But your claim is based on your faith that you "find it impossible to believe...". They did say they've changed to a computer-free environment after the Snowden leaks. Or maybe Russian would-be leakers know the stakes are higher for them than for American leakers, because they can get tea with a portion of Polonium.
  - marmot777 10y ago
    Possibly but the consequences of leaking secret (classified) information is pretty bad in both the U.S. and Russia. I think having to flee to Russia with no option to leave that country for the rest of your life to suck pretty bad. Snowden says he'd gladly come home to face trial provided he's offered a fair trial. So he'd risk it all for a fair trial but U.S. officials won't give him one.

wallace_f 10y ago

> For the purpose of devil's advocate in this, I think it's possible to state truths and still be misleading and/or distracting from another narrative. I think while that's correct, we shouldn't let it distract our attention to the fact that transparency in government/democracy is good for the people, especially the working class.

marmot777 10y ago

Whether something is true or not is a separate question from whether they are neutral or not. Whoever twisted a discussion of bias into a binary question of truth vs. lies, muddled the question to the point where clear thinking about it would be impossible. Bias and truth are separate issues. You can be a lying bastard who lies to harm a specific person or entity and you can be a strict adherent to truth with the exact same motives.

rand83746 10y ago

God, I wish HN had a more convenient downvote button.

wegi 10y ago
Then you should change to reddit. The spirit of Hacker News encourages you to argue not to blindly downvote everyone that doesn't have the same opinion.
i336_ 10y ago
It becomes available after sufficient karma is gained. It took me just over 6 months.

erikbye 10y ago

Yes, exactly: there is no inherent conflict or contradiction in pushing truth (and especially only parts of it, manipulating by omission or redaction) and having an agenda. There are many ways in which you can manipulate e.g. public perceptions and policy with publishing the "right" truths at the right time. Though, I am not of the opinion that WikiLeaks has a hidden agenda or is controlled by a third party. But, neither would I be shocked to learn such a thing.