5 ms·

At this point I think Wikileaks is largely trash. Their agenda is blatantly anti-us motivated. This leak and the previous one are examples. The CIA is a spy o

At this point I think Wikileaks is largely trash. Their agenda is blatantly anti-us motivated. This leak and the previous one are examples. The CIA is a spy organization. Their job is to spy on foreign influencers. As such, they have spy tools... Just like Russia, China, the UK, etc. etc. If the headline here mattered, it would be, "Spy Agency has Spy Tool". There is no evidence at all that this stuff has been used domestically. But wikileaks buries that headline. Wikileaks continues to push the agenda that these leaks correlate with the legitimate PRISM leaks that we saw earlier. They push the narrative that these tools are being used on americans, should be ashamed, don't trust your intelligence agencies etc. Fueling the populist anti-intellectual bs we have going on in the world right now. Don't get me wrong. The US government should be ashamed of PRISM and the actions of the NSA, but Wikileaks should be ashamed of these leaks and the way they're representing this information..

zeveb 10y ago
Agree with your point re. Wikileaks, but I disagree that the PRISM leaks were legitimate, or anything to be ashamed of. To my knowledge, no compelling evidence indicates that the Constitutional or legal rights of Americans have been violated.
- John23832 10y ago
  I guess you could argue whether PRISM was lawful or not. I think we can all agree though that there was a recognizable moral gray area there that needed to be brought to the attention of the people. When brought to the light, the legitimacy could be argued. These current leaks are just attempts at undermining.
watscheatcodes 10y ago
Um... Need I remind you, that everything from Vault 7, was leaked on flash drives, (vault 7 shit doesn't require infrastructure to deploy or use as most nsa implementations do), and given to ex spooks, contractors, ex contractors, private contractors, even those with no intention of working for the government. Basically a deal sweetener, for those with similar status or ideals.
aargh_aargh 10y ago
> There is no evidence at all that this stuff has been used domestically. I read the article and they do not imply any connection to PRISM. Anyway, why would you be fine with such tools being used on non-US targets? Would you not be outraged if an equivalent tool was used on US targets by a non-US government?
- John23832 10y ago
  >I read the article and they do not imply any connection to PRISM. These leaks attempt to piggy back off of the snowden media frenzy > Anyway, why would you be fine with such tools being used on non-US targets? Would you not be outraged if an equivalent tool was used on US targets by a non-US government? It is the duty of each government to look after the well being of its people with the resources it has, up to and including spying. Spying has gone on since the dawn of civilization. My opinion extends to foreign governments attempting to spy on the US. Does it help the human race as a whole? No, but that's a much bigger philosophical debate.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    The activities of CIA are not and have not ever been good for we "people" of USA. Sometimes if one squints hard enough, it seems that perhaps they have been intended to be for our good, but usually that's not even the case.
    - John23832 10y ago
      You opinions about the CIA's actions are just that. I have negative opinions about the CIA's actions in many instances as well. Their possession of these types of tools however, clearly falls within their official stated goal, the standards we should judge them by.
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        It's interesting that 50-USC-46 doesn't seem to actually "officially state" any goal for the agency. That seems too glaring an oversight to be unintentional, so your appeal to such standards seems unfounded. I suggest that by any reasonable standard, CIA should have been shuttered decades ago. Even the tools seen here are indicted elsewhere in this thread by a knowledgeable person as "clownshoes".
monocasa 10y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intelligence-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intelligence... > An internal investigation by the C.I.A. has found that its officers penetrated a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee in preparing its damning report on the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program.
- John23832 10y ago
  Ok, that is an instance of the CIA looking bad... how does that apply to the content of this leak?
  - monocasa 10y ago
    They hacked Senate oversight computers. What do you think they used to do that?
    - John23832 10y ago
      Which goes to my point. If you have any issues, you have an issue with the fact that they hack congressional computers, not that that possess exploits and malware, which this article is about. You have an issue with their actions in that particular case, which is outside the scope of this article, or the argument that I was making.
      - monocasa 10y ago
        > They push the narrative that these tools are being used on americans, should be ashamed, don't trust your intelligence agencies etc. I then show public examples of the CIA not only using hacking tools against Americans, but against the very oversight framework that's supposed to keep them in check. > outside the scope of this article wat?
        kbenson 10y ago
        He's making the point that this is a tool. A weapon, but a tool. It's a very targeted tool, requiring manual delivery to an individual system. Getting upset at the CIA having this is like getting upset that they have assault rifles. Sure, they can do horrible things with assault rifles, and agents could even storm a US household and kill citizens. But as much as that would reflect horribly on the CIA, the fact that assault rifles exist and they have access to them is not indicative of their intent to use them on US citizens, regardless of whether it has happened in the past. Their charter means that these tools have valid reasons for existence under their normal, expected operating parameters.
lurker69 10y ago
WikiLeaks publishes what they get, if it is authentic, if it wasnt yet published elsewhere and if they find it historically significant. They cant really choose what to publish, since in case they would try to censor some leaker, he can easily leak via some other channel and accuse WikiLeaks of being biased and not publishing his leaks. Would you like them more if they would publish what they get, unless it somehow hurts American institutions? Why should WikiLeaks protect only US? They arent US organization, Assange is Australian, most staffers are European based. Your arguments sounds like it came from somebody who would say, that leaked DNC and Podesta emails should not be read, because they can hurt DNC campaign. I advise you to start advocating for big American firewall, something like China has, so you can protect US citizens from all information that might open their eyes but hurt some officials. It very important that these tools are published, so software companies can patch their software and people are able to protect themselves. Not everyone is US citizen. Rest of the world greets any leaks from intelligence agencies from any country. If you dont want, dont update your OS and security software, the rest of the world will.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  WikiLeaks publishes what they get Maybe they do, but it's also within their power to withhold information or publish selectively. It seems a little odd that they only seem to get information that hurts the US and its allies, but never information that would create problems for other superpowers. Perhaps that's entirely coincidental but then again perhaps it's not. I support Wikileaks' existence but don't take their claims at face value and question whether they are really the disinterested actors they claim to be.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    An important consideration is that if Wikileaks publishing criteria is as simple as the GP asserts, it's easy for them to be used by third parties to push an agenda. If, for example, Russia was behind a lot of the information leaked, then Wikileaks is the possibly unwitting mouthpiece of the Russian state, and are in fact laundering the information to present it without context. In both cases you find out about tools the U.S. intelligence apparatus uses for espionage, or about DNC emails, but if you know that comes from a foreign government, that is an important piece of context that's being lost. Normally, that government would be forced to either release it anonymously, or through a fictitious online identify, or as themselves. Having Wikileaks injected into the chain of custody changes the context it's perceived in.

zeveb 10y ago

Agree with your point re. Wikileaks, but I disagree that the PRISM leaks were legitimate, or anything to be ashamed of. To my knowledge, no compelling evidence indicates that the Constitutional or legal rights of Americans have been violated.

John23832 10y ago
I guess you could argue whether PRISM was lawful or not. I think we can all agree though that there was a recognizable moral gray area there that needed to be brought to the attention of the people. When brought to the light, the legitimacy could be argued. These current leaks are just attempts at undermining.

watscheatcodes 10y ago

Um... Need I remind you, that everything from Vault 7, was leaked on flash drives, (vault 7 shit doesn't require infrastructure to deploy or use as most nsa implementations do), and given to ex spooks, contractors, ex contractors, private contractors, even those with no intention of working for the government. Basically a deal sweetener, for those with similar status or ideals.

aargh_aargh 10y ago

> There is no evidence at all that this stuff has been used domestically. I read the article and they do not imply any connection to PRISM. Anyway, why would you be fine with such tools being used on non-US targets? Would you not be outraged if an equivalent tool was used on US targets by a non-US government?

John23832 10y ago
>I read the article and they do not imply any connection to PRISM. These leaks attempt to piggy back off of the snowden media frenzy > Anyway, why would you be fine with such tools being used on non-US targets? Would you not be outraged if an equivalent tool was used on US targets by a non-US government? It is the duty of each government to look after the well being of its people with the resources it has, up to and including spying. Spying has gone on since the dawn of civilization. My opinion extends to foreign governments attempting to spy on the US. Does it help the human race as a whole? No, but that's a much bigger philosophical debate.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  The activities of CIA are not and have not ever been good for we "people" of USA. Sometimes if one squints hard enough, it seems that perhaps they have been intended to be for our good, but usually that's not even the case.
  - John23832 10y ago
    You opinions about the CIA's actions are just that. I have negative opinions about the CIA's actions in many instances as well. Their possession of these types of tools however, clearly falls within their official stated goal, the standards we should judge them by.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      It's interesting that 50-USC-46 doesn't seem to actually "officially state" any goal for the agency. That seems too glaring an oversight to be unintentional, so your appeal to such standards seems unfounded. I suggest that by any reasonable standard, CIA should have been shuttered decades ago. Even the tools seen here are indicted elsewhere in this thread by a knowledgeable person as "clownshoes".

monocasa 10y ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intelligence-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intelligence... > An internal investigation by the C.I.A. has found that its officers penetrated a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee in preparing its damning report on the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program.

John23832 10y ago
Ok, that is an instance of the CIA looking bad... how does that apply to the content of this leak?
- monocasa 10y ago
  They hacked Senate oversight computers. What do you think they used to do that?
  - John23832 10y ago
    Which goes to my point. If you have any issues, you have an issue with the fact that they hack congressional computers, not that that possess exploits and malware, which this article is about. You have an issue with their actions in that particular case, which is outside the scope of this article, or the argument that I was making.
    - monocasa 10y ago
      > They push the narrative that these tools are being used on americans, should be ashamed, don't trust your intelligence agencies etc. I then show public examples of the CIA not only using hacking tools against Americans, but against the very oversight framework that's supposed to keep them in check. > outside the scope of this article wat?
      - kbenson 10y ago
        He's making the point that this is a tool. A weapon, but a tool. It's a very targeted tool, requiring manual delivery to an individual system. Getting upset at the CIA having this is like getting upset that they have assault rifles. Sure, they can do horrible things with assault rifles, and agents could even storm a US household and kill citizens. But as much as that would reflect horribly on the CIA, the fact that assault rifles exist and they have access to them is not indicative of their intent to use them on US citizens, regardless of whether it has happened in the past. Their charter means that these tools have valid reasons for existence under their normal, expected operating parameters.

lurker69 10y ago

WikiLeaks publishes what they get, if it is authentic, if it wasnt yet published elsewhere and if they find it historically significant. They cant really choose what to publish, since in case they would try to censor some leaker, he can easily leak via some other channel and accuse WikiLeaks of being biased and not publishing his leaks. Would you like them more if they would publish what they get, unless it somehow hurts American institutions? Why should WikiLeaks protect only US? They arent US organization, Assange is Australian, most staffers are European based. Your arguments sounds like it came from somebody who would say, that leaked DNC and Podesta emails should not be read, because they can hurt DNC campaign. I advise you to start advocating for big American firewall, something like China has, so you can protect US citizens from all information that might open their eyes but hurt some officials. It very important that these tools are published, so software companies can patch their software and people are able to protect themselves. Not everyone is US citizen. Rest of the world greets any leaks from intelligence agencies from any country. If you dont want, dont update your OS and security software, the rest of the world will.

anigbrowl 10y ago
WikiLeaks publishes what they get Maybe they do, but it's also within their power to withhold information or publish selectively. It seems a little odd that they only seem to get information that hurts the US and its allies, but never information that would create problems for other superpowers. Perhaps that's entirely coincidental but then again perhaps it's not. I support Wikileaks' existence but don't take their claims at face value and question whether they are really the disinterested actors they claim to be.
- kbenson 10y ago
  An important consideration is that if Wikileaks publishing criteria is as simple as the GP asserts, it's easy for them to be used by third parties to push an agenda. If, for example, Russia was behind a lot of the information leaked, then Wikileaks is the possibly unwitting mouthpiece of the Russian state, and are in fact laundering the information to present it without context. In both cases you find out about tools the U.S. intelligence apparatus uses for espionage, or about DNC emails, but if you know that comes from a foreign government, that is an important piece of context that's being lost. Normally, that government would be forced to either release it anonymously, or through a fictitious online identify, or as themselves. Having Wikileaks injected into the chain of custody changes the context it's perceived in.