14 ms·

The truth isn't responsible for serving anyone's interests, and especially not the interests of the biggest secret keeper. The truth is not political, except th

by elif 10y ago

The truth isn't responsible for serving anyone's interests, and especially not the interests of the biggest secret keeper. The truth is not political, except that it is the natural enemy of politics which rely upon secrecy. If your perspective is that more secrets are being kept by more egregious actors than the US, the truth welcomes your contribution...

azinman2 10y ago
Why shouldn't there be secrets?
- elif 10y ago
  There should be secrets. there should not be secret attacks on every computer on the planet.
  - azinman2 10y ago
    I dont think there are, but who can say. But you realize the US isn't the only one hacking systems, right?
    - chronicx0 10y ago
      Once people find out their beloved Sweeden and Norway are also doing it, they will start scratching their heads.
  - externalities88 10y ago
    So you're being uptight about getting sources from others. Care to back up the assertion that "secret attacks on every computer on the planet" are literally taking place?
- 01000001 10y ago
  Why shouldn't they be told?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - thret 10y ago
    If they reveal information about current operations.
ceejayoz 10y ago
One does start to worry about a truth-teller who only ever presents one side of the story, though.
- elif 10y ago
  There are 6.5 billion people who can tell the truth on the other side as well. It's not productive to attack the one group doing something, when everyone else is doing nothing.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    As much as they'd like to portray things that way, Wikileaks is hardly the only group doing something. The Snowden leaks didn't go through them. The Panama Papers didn't, either.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Given who and what the Panama Papers exposed (extensive ties to and involvment of Putin), that's a spectacularly cogent point.
- PKop 10y ago
  Perhaps they feel the need to balance out the other truth-tellers only telling the other side of the story
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
jdmichal 10y ago
> The truth isn't responsible for serving anyone's interests... I think it's interesting you respond this way. Because I thought it was pretty public knowledge that Wikileaks does not release all the information they get. And they especially don't release the information at the very same moment they get it. You'd think if your quote was aligned with their values, that such wouldn't be the case.
eli 10y ago
Wikileaks creates misleading summaries and narratives of the documents they release and then uses various techniques to encourage the media to follow that narrative. For example, they dump an unreadably large cache at the same time as a sexed-up summary and then tell news orgs that if they cover the story quickly and favorably, they'll be rewarded with early access to future leaks. The "CIA uses your smart TV to spy on you" story is more myth than reality and it was completely created by Wikileaks. (When your threat model is "CIA agents enter your home to plant bugs" then getting rid of your Smart TV isn't much protection.)
- elif 10y ago
  I'm not sure i follow your reasoning. I follow all of their leaks, but i'm not aware of these "summaries" you are referring to. It sounds like perhaps your interaction with wikileaks is mediated by the media, and your problem is with the media. For instance, this link we are commenting on is directly to a primary document, with no summary provided. The only "summaries" i am aware of, would be their tweets, which are inherently oversimplified. I recommend the wikileaks subreddit for navigating the "unreadably large cache" if that is an issue you are facing.
  - 112-123 10y ago
    https://wikileaks.org/vault7/#Marble https://wikileaks.org/vault7/#Marble Framework > The source code shows that Marble has test examples not just in English but also in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi. This would permit a forensic attribution double game, for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion There's no evidence the CIA has ever done this. This is pure conjecture based on the fact that there's demo code showing that the library supports Unicode. They're pretty obviously trying to push the idea that attribution of hacks (such as the DNC hack) can be really easily spoofed, and you shouldn't trust them. And it's working: https://www.rt.com/news/382940-wikileaks-vault7-marble-framework/ https://www.rt.com/news/382940-wikileaks-vault7-marble-frame... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/-wikileaks-vault-7-marble-cia-10132482 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/-wikileaks-vault-7-m... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4367746/WikiLeaks-says-CIA-disguised-hacking-Russian-activity.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4367746/WikiLeaks-sa...
ajross 10y ago
> If your perspective is that more secrets are being kept by more egregious actors than the US, the truth welcomes your contribution... If your perspective is that the US is truly the most secretive and "egregious" actor on the modern stage, then you are shockingly naive. Or, more likely, misled by the skewed "truth" you are reading.
- elif 10y ago
  please provide something to educate me. Who has more spy bases around the world? Who has disseminated their spy tools so widely that they have become available to 3rd parties? Who else is tapping undersea fiber? Who else is behind the SSL layer at google? I like primary documents obviously, but publications are fine too.
  - ajross 10y ago
    So "egregious" behavior extends only to digital surveillance? OK, fine. Surely the US is the worst at that, I think that's a fair assessment. I thought you were talking about seemingly-Wikileak relevant things like secret police stuff, control over national media, poisoning of political enemies, assassinations... Y'know. Boring stuff. Not "egregious" I guess.
    - freeflight 10y ago
      >like secret police stuff, control over national media, poisoning of political enemies, assassinations How about "secret police stuff" like the illegal abductions of people to put them into torture "black sites" all over the world? [0] Massive control over global media trough lobbying and propaganda instruments? [1] A long history of successful, and not so successful assassination attempts aimed at the "ideological opposition" all over the world? [2] The point here not being that the "US is the worst", the point being that the US hardly has the "moral high ground" on these issues just because they use these methods mostly against external "enemies" and not their own population. Questionable methods are questionable because of their methodology, not because of their targets. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition [1]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-op... [2]https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US/Foreign_Assassinations_since_1945 https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US/Foreign_Assassinations_since_...
externalities88 10y ago
Wikileaks is controlled by humans who have a pretty dubious track record of seeking truth, when immediate personal benefit is also an option. Assange is essentially a prisoner of the US. Withholding data regarding other players (does anyone really believe Russia and China are any less hackable?) in order to undermine US is very much in his interests. Not to say the US isn't deserving some pushback. Just saying there are very specific human interests in play as well.
VikingCoder 10y ago
> The truth is not political Nonsense. Discovering and revealing the truth, and the timing of those actions, can absolutely be political. If one out of 4 PARTY-X Congressmen are cheating on their wives, and one out of 5 PARTY-Y Congressmen are cheating on their wives... But somehow wikileaks publishes a list of Congressmen cheating on their wives a week before the election, and they're all PARTY-X on the list, and no PARTY-Y, you get to wonder if it was political.
- travmatt 10y ago
  It's always been a bullshit and disingenuous argument, especially for the goal of defending Wikileaks. The truth is Assange is paid to hurt the US, and censor information that damages Russia. That's why he does things like publish the personal info of CIA personnel children, censor emails damaging to Russia, and hold regular meetings with arms of Russian propaganda. Assange has tacitly admitted this and didn't even try to deny it.
gkoberger 10y ago
The truth may not be political, however the curation is. Take the US election, for example. Wikileaks has released information about Clinton and the DNC, and claims they have stuff they never released about Trump and the GOP [1, 2]. Other sources have said the GOP was hacked in the same attack that got Podesta [3]. The only person less likely to criticize Russia than Trump is Assange. Wikileaks lost any proximity to an alleged moral high ground when they stopped leaking everything they got, and started editorializing their release schedule for political impact, started talking about US politics, and held back bad things about people they like. (I say this as someone who is very pro-Snowden.) 1/ http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293453-assange-wikileaks-trump-info-no-worse-than-him http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/29345... 2/ http://theweek.com/speedreads/645239/julian-assange-tells-megyn-kelly-why-wikileaks-isnt-releasing-dirt-donald-trump http://theweek.com/speedreads/645239/julian-assange-tells-me... 3/ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russia-hack-u-s-politics-bigger-disclosed-includes-gop-n661866 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russia-hack-u-s-politics...
- mhermher 10y ago
  Do you hold WaPo, NYT, CNN to those same standards? Because that is mainly what American "MSM" does, selectively publish information which bebefits the agenda of American foreign policy interests. It's fair if you align yourself with American foreign policy interests, I do too, but to single out other publications that don't follow that agenda is just a case of having self interested double standards. All of the criticism of Wiki leaks and non-America MSM has all sounded like that to me. "They are selectively publishing different things than we want to be selectively published. Waaah". But let me guess what the go to response would be: "whataboutism" (aka you can't call me a hypocrite, because some guy made a term for it).
  - reddytowns 10y ago
    By complaining about WaPo, et al, you are guilty of "whataboutism" yourself. Is the standard so low that we can't even mention that a non profit(?) organization devoted to releasing leaks of wrongdoing shouldn't be blatantly partisan? Edit: I misread the last part of your comment about "whataboutism". Yet my question still applies, isn't it?
Spooky23 10y ago
There is lying, but there's also the sin of omission. If you're running a media outlet, and use your editorial discretion to only disclose specific truths that align with your broader interest, you're not worthy of claiming to be acting in the public interest. Facts are never black and white things. The meaning of truth is dependent on the context surrounding it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
oculusthrift 10y ago
im sure youre in favor of wikileaks publishing the US nuclear launch codes for isis or russia to use. information should be set free even if it sets off the Apocalypse?
- sqeaky 10y ago
  Maybe we shouldn't have systems that are just a password away leak from creating the Apocalypse? Actually, I am pretty sure we don't. Those codes come in pairs and are all subject to two person control. Also, those guys that turn the keys can use their own judgment to veto the launch. In the event a leak was known or an unknown reason to launch came through I suspect they wouldn't. Those codes won't let them re-target the missiles either, we will be firing them at whatever the predesignated target is. I am not sure if anyone else is up to the task of firing back in the ten or so minutes before all of our cold war enemies are erased. So how about back to the practical example about what information can go free in the event of government transparency. Surely there are some plausible examples that can also make your point.
  - oculusthrift 10y ago
    pedantry and avoiding the whole logical point. the whole point is there can exist such secrets. how about if they leak seal team 6's location the second they touch down to kill osama? can you honestly not think of such a situation? if you can then why not refute the point instead of dissembling?
    - sneak 10y ago
      Yes, interfering with plans to commit murder is always a legitimate reason for sharing information.
- nebabyte 10y ago
  I'm, you're, and the "information" you speak of is so critical that it's no longer simply information - it's hardware and process-secured - so no, it doesn't really qualify for the 'anti information freedom' argument. "Knowledge of how to create an atomic bomb" would still qualify, but also gets torn down pretty quickly - that information isn't owned, and can't be restriced to trustess - the "information" simply derives from science, and is non-excludagle to any intelligent society no matter what you do to try and "exclude" them. So even in that case, you must fall back to regulating the physical - limiting supply of nuclear materials, policing/spying on use of facilities that 'could' be used to create them, or so on. Information freedom isn't just some 'inevitable truth' - it's the nature of information itself. Arguing against it isn't even futile, it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding. (Which I suppose could have been guessed at by the spelling of the first 3 words of your comment, but I suppose others can get the benefit)
maxerickson 10y ago
They were talking about Wikileaks, not the abstract concept of truth.
res0nat0r 10y ago
Wikileaks is now 100% political and is Julian Assange's political mouthpiece. Weather you agree with his position or not it is abundantly clear it is in no way a neutral arbiter of information anymore. Just ask why DDB left years ago.
res0nat0r 10y ago
Wikileaks is now 100% political and is Julian Assange's political mouthpiece. Weather you agree with his position or not it is abundantly clear it is in no way a neutral arbiter of information anymore. Just ask why DDB left years ago.
res0nat0r 10y ago
Wikileaks is now 100% political and is Julian Assange's political mouthpiece. Weather you agree with his position or not it is abundantly clear it is in no way a neutral arbiter of information anymore. Just ask why DDB left years ago.
res0nat0r 10y ago
Wikileaks is now 100% political and is Julian Assange's political mouthpiece. Weather you agree with his position or not it is abundantly clear it is in no way a neutral arbiter of information anymore. Just ask why DDB left years ago.

by elif 10y ago

azinman2 10y ago

Why shouldn't there be secrets?

elif 10y ago
There should be secrets. there should not be secret attacks on every computer on the planet.
- azinman2 10y ago
  I dont think there are, but who can say. But you realize the US isn't the only one hacking systems, right?
  - chronicx0 10y ago
    Once people find out their beloved Sweeden and Norway are also doing it, they will start scratching their heads.
- externalities88 10y ago
  So you're being uptight about getting sources from others. Care to back up the assertion that "secret attacks on every computer on the planet" are literally taking place?
01000001 10y ago
Why shouldn't they be told?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- thret 10y ago
  If they reveal information about current operations.

ceejayoz 10y ago

One does start to worry about a truth-teller who only ever presents one side of the story, though.

elif 10y ago
There are 6.5 billion people who can tell the truth on the other side as well. It's not productive to attack the one group doing something, when everyone else is doing nothing.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  As much as they'd like to portray things that way, Wikileaks is hardly the only group doing something. The Snowden leaks didn't go through them. The Panama Papers didn't, either.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Given who and what the Panama Papers exposed (extensive ties to and involvment of Putin), that's a spectacularly cogent point.
PKop 10y ago
Perhaps they feel the need to balance out the other truth-tellers only telling the other side of the story
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

jdmichal 10y ago

> The truth isn't responsible for serving anyone's interests... I think it's interesting you respond this way. Because I thought it was pretty public knowledge that Wikileaks does not release all the information they get. And they especially don't release the information at the very same moment they get it. You'd think if your quote was aligned with their values, that such wouldn't be the case.

eli 10y ago

Wikileaks creates misleading summaries and narratives of the documents they release and then uses various techniques to encourage the media to follow that narrative. For example, they dump an unreadably large cache at the same time as a sexed-up summary and then tell news orgs that if they cover the story quickly and favorably, they'll be rewarded with early access to future leaks. The "CIA uses your smart TV to spy on you" story is more myth than reality and it was completely created by Wikileaks. (When your threat model is "CIA agents enter your home to plant bugs" then getting rid of your Smart TV isn't much protection.)

elif 10y ago
I'm not sure i follow your reasoning. I follow all of their leaks, but i'm not aware of these "summaries" you are referring to. It sounds like perhaps your interaction with wikileaks is mediated by the media, and your problem is with the media. For instance, this link we are commenting on is directly to a primary document, with no summary provided. The only "summaries" i am aware of, would be their tweets, which are inherently oversimplified. I recommend the wikileaks subreddit for navigating the "unreadably large cache" if that is an issue you are facing.
- 112-123 10y ago
  https://wikileaks.org/vault7/#Marble https://wikileaks.org/vault7/#Marble Framework > The source code shows that Marble has test examples not just in English but also in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi. This would permit a forensic attribution double game, for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion There's no evidence the CIA has ever done this. This is pure conjecture based on the fact that there's demo code showing that the library supports Unicode. They're pretty obviously trying to push the idea that attribution of hacks (such as the DNC hack) can be really easily spoofed, and you shouldn't trust them. And it's working: https://www.rt.com/news/382940-wikileaks-vault7-marble-framework/ https://www.rt.com/news/382940-wikileaks-vault7-marble-frame... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/-wikileaks-vault-7-marble-cia-10132482 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/-wikileaks-vault-7-m... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4367746/WikiLeaks-says-CIA-disguised-hacking-Russian-activity.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4367746/WikiLeaks-sa...

ajross 10y ago

> If your perspective is that more secrets are being kept by more egregious actors than the US, the truth welcomes your contribution... If your perspective is that the US is truly the most secretive and "egregious" actor on the modern stage, then you are shockingly naive. Or, more likely, misled by the skewed "truth" you are reading.

elif 10y ago
please provide something to educate me. Who has more spy bases around the world? Who has disseminated their spy tools so widely that they have become available to 3rd parties? Who else is tapping undersea fiber? Who else is behind the SSL layer at google? I like primary documents obviously, but publications are fine too.
- ajross 10y ago
  So "egregious" behavior extends only to digital surveillance? OK, fine. Surely the US is the worst at that, I think that's a fair assessment. I thought you were talking about seemingly-Wikileak relevant things like secret police stuff, control over national media, poisoning of political enemies, assassinations... Y'know. Boring stuff. Not "egregious" I guess.
  - freeflight 10y ago
    >like secret police stuff, control over national media, poisoning of political enemies, assassinations How about "secret police stuff" like the illegal abductions of people to put them into torture "black sites" all over the world? [0] Massive control over global media trough lobbying and propaganda instruments? [1] A long history of successful, and not so successful assassination attempts aimed at the "ideological opposition" all over the world? [2] The point here not being that the "US is the worst", the point being that the US hardly has the "moral high ground" on these issues just because they use these methods mostly against external "enemies" and not their own population. Questionable methods are questionable because of their methodology, not because of their targets. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition [1]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-op... [2]https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US/Foreign_Assassinations_since_1945 https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US/Foreign_Assassinations_since_...

externalities88 10y ago

Wikileaks is controlled by humans who have a pretty dubious track record of seeking truth, when immediate personal benefit is also an option. Assange is essentially a prisoner of the US. Withholding data regarding other players (does anyone really believe Russia and China are any less hackable?) in order to undermine US is very much in his interests. Not to say the US isn't deserving some pushback. Just saying there are very specific human interests in play as well.

VikingCoder 10y ago

> The truth is not political Nonsense. Discovering and revealing the truth, and the timing of those actions, can absolutely be political. If one out of 4 PARTY-X Congressmen are cheating on their wives, and one out of 5 PARTY-Y Congressmen are cheating on their wives... But somehow wikileaks publishes a list of Congressmen cheating on their wives a week before the election, and they're all PARTY-X on the list, and no PARTY-Y, you get to wonder if it was political.

travmatt 10y ago
It's always been a bullshit and disingenuous argument, especially for the goal of defending Wikileaks. The truth is Assange is paid to hurt the US, and censor information that damages Russia. That's why he does things like publish the personal info of CIA personnel children, censor emails damaging to Russia, and hold regular meetings with arms of Russian propaganda. Assange has tacitly admitted this and didn't even try to deny it.

gkoberger 10y ago

The truth may not be political, however the curation is. Take the US election, for example. Wikileaks has released information about Clinton and the DNC, and claims they have stuff they never released about Trump and the GOP [1, 2]. Other sources have said the GOP was hacked in the same attack that got Podesta [3]. The only person less likely to criticize Russia than Trump is Assange. Wikileaks lost any proximity to an alleged moral high ground when they stopped leaking everything they got, and started editorializing their release schedule for political impact, started talking about US politics, and held back bad things about people they like. (I say this as someone who is very pro-Snowden.) 1/ http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293453-assange-wikileaks-trump-info-no-worse-than-him http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/29345... 2/ http://theweek.com/speedreads/645239/julian-assange-tells-megyn-kelly-why-wikileaks-isnt-releasing-dirt-donald-trump http://theweek.com/speedreads/645239/julian-assange-tells-me... 3/ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russia-hack-u-s-politics-bigger-disclosed-includes-gop-n661866 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russia-hack-u-s-politics...

mhermher 10y ago
Do you hold WaPo, NYT, CNN to those same standards? Because that is mainly what American "MSM" does, selectively publish information which bebefits the agenda of American foreign policy interests. It's fair if you align yourself with American foreign policy interests, I do too, but to single out other publications that don't follow that agenda is just a case of having self interested double standards. All of the criticism of Wiki leaks and non-America MSM has all sounded like that to me. "They are selectively publishing different things than we want to be selectively published. Waaah". But let me guess what the go to response would be: "whataboutism" (aka you can't call me a hypocrite, because some guy made a term for it).
- reddytowns 10y ago
  By complaining about WaPo, et al, you are guilty of "whataboutism" yourself. Is the standard so low that we can't even mention that a non profit(?) organization devoted to releasing leaks of wrongdoing shouldn't be blatantly partisan? Edit: I misread the last part of your comment about "whataboutism". Yet my question still applies, isn't it?

Spooky23 10y ago

There is lying, but there's also the sin of omission. If you're running a media outlet, and use your editorial discretion to only disclose specific truths that align with your broader interest, you're not worthy of claiming to be acting in the public interest. Facts are never black and white things. The meaning of truth is dependent on the context surrounding it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

oculusthrift 10y ago

im sure youre in favor of wikileaks publishing the US nuclear launch codes for isis or russia to use. information should be set free even if it sets off the Apocalypse?

sqeaky 10y ago
Maybe we shouldn't have systems that are just a password away leak from creating the Apocalypse? Actually, I am pretty sure we don't. Those codes come in pairs and are all subject to two person control. Also, those guys that turn the keys can use their own judgment to veto the launch. In the event a leak was known or an unknown reason to launch came through I suspect they wouldn't. Those codes won't let them re-target the missiles either, we will be firing them at whatever the predesignated target is. I am not sure if anyone else is up to the task of firing back in the ten or so minutes before all of our cold war enemies are erased. So how about back to the practical example about what information can go free in the event of government transparency. Surely there are some plausible examples that can also make your point.
- oculusthrift 10y ago
  pedantry and avoiding the whole logical point. the whole point is there can exist such secrets. how about if they leak seal team 6's location the second they touch down to kill osama? can you honestly not think of such a situation? if you can then why not refute the point instead of dissembling?
  - sneak 10y ago
    Yes, interfering with plans to commit murder is always a legitimate reason for sharing information.
nebabyte 10y ago
I'm, you're, and the "information" you speak of is so critical that it's no longer simply information - it's hardware and process-secured - so no, it doesn't really qualify for the 'anti information freedom' argument. "Knowledge of how to create an atomic bomb" would still qualify, but also gets torn down pretty quickly - that information isn't owned, and can't be restriced to trustess - the "information" simply derives from science, and is non-excludagle to any intelligent society no matter what you do to try and "exclude" them. So even in that case, you must fall back to regulating the physical - limiting supply of nuclear materials, policing/spying on use of facilities that 'could' be used to create them, or so on. Information freedom isn't just some 'inevitable truth' - it's the nature of information itself. Arguing against it isn't even futile, it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding. (Which I suppose could have been guessed at by the spelling of the first 3 words of your comment, but I suppose others can get the benefit)

maxerickson 10y ago

They were talking about Wikileaks, not the abstract concept of truth.

res0nat0r 10y ago

Wikileaks is now 100% political and is Julian Assange's political mouthpiece. Weather you agree with his position or not it is abundantly clear it is in no way a neutral arbiter of information anymore. Just ask why DDB left years ago.

res0nat0r 10y ago