4 ms·

I vouched for this comment. I don't know if I should have done so. I find this whole story very confusing. Why won't wikileaks confirm or deny whether he worke

I vouched for this comment. I don't know if I should have done so. I find this whole story very confusing. Why won't wikileaks confirm or deny whether he worked for them? That would either put these conspiracy theories to rest, or provide significant evidence for them. Instead they seem to strongly hint that he might have been a leak, but won't outright confirm it. It's like they want to fuel conspiracy theories without feeling responsible for them.

sanswork 9y ago
>Why won't wikileaks confirm or deny whether he worked for them? Because they have a lot to gain politically by hinting at it and adding fuel to the conspiracy theories while being able to say "we didn't actually say he was our source" if the actual data comes out proving he wasn't. >It's like they want to fuel conspiracy theories without feeling responsible for them. They do and your vouching this above comment is just helping these people smear a dead mans life.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  Alright I undid it, mostly because I don't want to get in trouble with the mods. That does make a lot of sense. I have a friend who is really into this stuff and showed me videos about it. So I reacted negatively when the only discussion about it was flagged to hell, and all the comments were just telling him to "fuck off" with no argument.
  - micheljones 9y ago
    Thank you for the support of free speech anyway. I do not claim it is true, I claim that there's enough 'hints' that it should warrant a proper investigation and not a coverup. As for this guy's claims: 1) Assange all but confirms it: https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920 https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920 2) Seth Rich's parents want the truth and justice as well, instead of the coverup that was done so far: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcKiYTq5Gho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcKiYTq5Gho
- micheljones 9y ago
  Assange all but confirms it on his account: https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920 https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920 As for the 'smearing a dead man's life', I don't see how it's smearing - if it gets proven to be true, that man is a national hero. And as for 'causing hardship to his family', which is probably the next angle you're gonna try to use, the dead man's parents want the truth too, and not a coverup of their son's death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcKiYTq5Gho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcKiYTq5Gho
  - sanswork 9y ago
    Assange is very careful to give the impression of confirming it while never actually doing it because he wants to fuel the fires. >I don't see how it's smearing You're saying he isn't trustworthy and that he is a criminal. >he dead man's parents want the truth too, and not a coverup of their son's death: That video was thanking people for supporting the gofundme campaign and has nothing to do with the conspiracy theories. This fact has been posted everywhere the video has for days now so given your obvious interest I can only assume that you're posting it knowing this. His family have threatened to sue fox and his brother wrote quite the letter to Hannity asking him to stop.
    - micheljones 9y ago
      I am saying that he's a hero. As for the threats to sue, they were issued by a DNC spokeperson, and not by the family: https://i.redd.it/2p4wvr9k9wxy.png https://i.redd.it/2p4wvr9k9wxy.png
      - sanswork 9y ago
        You believe the leaker is a hero. But what you are saying is that he hacked into his employers email accounts and stole their emails then distributed that information to a third party. It's nice to see the DNC supporting his family. Search for his brothers letter.
        9y ago
micheljones 9y ago
https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920 https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920
- Houshalter 9y ago
  That rule makes no sense if the source is dead. Let alone murdered. The point is to protect their sources. But if there really is a conspiracy, they are only protecting the murders. This gives me a much lower opinion of wikileaks.
  - micheljones 9y ago
    That does seem logical, but the other side is logical too - the leaker might not have been a 'lone wolf', and by officially confirming the leaker's identity, they could jeopardize leaker's helpers. edit: and I forgot the main point, they need to keep the status/image they have, that they will NEVER give up leaker's identity, so they don't scare off future leakers.
    - sanswork 9y ago
      That doesn't make sense. Confirming his identity wouldn't make it any easier to identify any helpers unless you believe all 3 of the following things: He leaked the emails, He was killed for leaking the emails, The killers won't know his identity unless Wikileaks confirmed it.
      - micheljones 9y ago
        I will not try to claim I know their motivations. But it's a security/OPSEC rule, and just because it doesn't apply in specific cases doesn't mean it should be thrown out. And like I said, I believe their main motive is to keep the trust of possible future leakers, in the sense of insisting that they will never officially confirm identity of their sources for any reason.
        9y ago
jcranmer 9y ago
There are three plausible reasons why Wikileaks wouldn't say anything: 1. They have a general policy of not confirming or denying such matters. 2. He worked for them, and they do not want to further conspiracy theories (or aid in bringing possible murders to justice). 3. He didn't work for them, and they do want to further conspiracy theories rather than eradicate them. Given the way that they've operated recently, the third option does tend to seem more plausible than option #2.
jjawssd 9y ago
It is not fair that Hacker News killed parent without discussion.

sanswork 9y ago

>Why won't wikileaks confirm or deny whether he worked for them? Because they have a lot to gain politically by hinting at it and adding fuel to the conspiracy theories while being able to say "we didn't actually say he was our source" if the actual data comes out proving he wasn't. >It's like they want to fuel conspiracy theories without feeling responsible for them. They do and your vouching this above comment is just helping these people smear a dead mans life.

Houshalter 9y ago
Alright I undid it, mostly because I don't want to get in trouble with the mods. That does make a lot of sense. I have a friend who is really into this stuff and showed me videos about it. So I reacted negatively when the only discussion about it was flagged to hell, and all the comments were just telling him to "fuck off" with no argument.
- micheljones 9y ago
  Thank you for the support of free speech anyway. I do not claim it is true, I claim that there's enough 'hints' that it should warrant a proper investigation and not a coverup. As for this guy's claims: 1) Assange all but confirms it: https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920 https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920 2) Seth Rich's parents want the truth and justice as well, instead of the coverup that was done so far: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcKiYTq5Gho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcKiYTq5Gho
micheljones 9y ago
Assange all but confirms it on his account: https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920 https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920 As for the 'smearing a dead man's life', I don't see how it's smearing - if it gets proven to be true, that man is a national hero. And as for 'causing hardship to his family', which is probably the next angle you're gonna try to use, the dead man's parents want the truth too, and not a coverup of their son's death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcKiYTq5Gho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcKiYTq5Gho
- sanswork 9y ago
  Assange is very careful to give the impression of confirming it while never actually doing it because he wants to fuel the fires. >I don't see how it's smearing You're saying he isn't trustworthy and that he is a criminal. >he dead man's parents want the truth too, and not a coverup of their son's death: That video was thanking people for supporting the gofundme campaign and has nothing to do with the conspiracy theories. This fact has been posted everywhere the video has for days now so given your obvious interest I can only assume that you're posting it knowing this. His family have threatened to sue fox and his brother wrote quite the letter to Hannity asking him to stop.
  - micheljones 9y ago
    I am saying that he's a hero. As for the threats to sue, they were issued by a DNC spokeperson, and not by the family: https://i.redd.it/2p4wvr9k9wxy.png https://i.redd.it/2p4wvr9k9wxy.png
    - sanswork 9y ago
      You believe the leaker is a hero. But what you are saying is that he hacked into his employers email accounts and stole their emails then distributed that information to a third party. It's nice to see the DNC supporting his family. Search for his brothers letter.
      - 9y ago

micheljones 9y ago

https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920 https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920

Houshalter 9y ago
That rule makes no sense if the source is dead. Let alone murdered. The point is to protect their sources. But if there really is a conspiracy, they are only protecting the murders. This gives me a much lower opinion of wikileaks.
- micheljones 9y ago
  That does seem logical, but the other side is logical too - the leaker might not have been a 'lone wolf', and by officially confirming the leaker's identity, they could jeopardize leaker's helpers. edit: and I forgot the main point, they need to keep the status/image they have, that they will NEVER give up leaker's identity, so they don't scare off future leakers.
  - sanswork 9y ago
    That doesn't make sense. Confirming his identity wouldn't make it any easier to identify any helpers unless you believe all 3 of the following things: He leaked the emails, He was killed for leaking the emails, The killers won't know his identity unless Wikileaks confirmed it.
    - micheljones 9y ago
      I will not try to claim I know their motivations. But it's a security/OPSEC rule, and just because it doesn't apply in specific cases doesn't mean it should be thrown out. And like I said, I believe their main motive is to keep the trust of possible future leakers, in the sense of insisting that they will never officially confirm identity of their sources for any reason.
      - 9y ago

jcranmer 9y ago

There are three plausible reasons why Wikileaks wouldn't say anything: 1. They have a general policy of not confirming or denying such matters. 2. He worked for them, and they do not want to further conspiracy theories (or aid in bringing possible murders to justice). 3. He didn't work for them, and they do want to further conspiracy theories rather than eradicate them. Given the way that they've operated recently, the third option does tend to seem more plausible than option #2.

jjawssd 9y ago

It is not fair that Hacker News killed parent without discussion.