4 ms·

If they are trying to filter something, they are doing a pretty awful job. Everything released so far in Vault 7 appears to simply be a dump of intelligence col

If they are trying to filter something, they are doing a pretty awful job. Everything released so far in Vault 7 appears to simply be a dump of intelligence collection tradecraft/methods.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
As a purely hypothetical example: * The vault7 trove could contain documents on CIA minimization and targeting rules, which show that they carefully avoid US targets and only go for high value targets with these tools, and further could contain mostly exploits targeted at industrial/military targets. Wikileaks has focused on how they could use the (selectively) released tools to target civilians. By selecting to release only tools that (could) target civilian appliances, hiding the fact that most tools are built for, eg, industrial/military targets, and that CIA procedures focus on industrial/military targets, Wikileaks effectively shapes the narrative to be about how the CIA is targeting civilians, when the reality is that they're targeting high value, perfectly appropriate things (which just happen to occasionally use technology others do as well). * Sowing that kind of distrust between US civilians and one of their intel agencies would be a perfectly normal PSYOPs goal, and in-line with what you'd expect from, eg, RT. That Wikileaks has decided to editorialize their content in such a way means that you now need to evaluate those kinds of scenarios when thinking about the things they release, instead of just focusing on the content. It reduces their brand value significantly.
- willstrafach 9y ago
  You make a good point regarding what they might be trying to do. But do you think many people are actually buying it? Anyone could think of malicious uses for all sorts of things, the only noteworthy revelations would be actual proof of misuse.
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    > Anyone could think of malicious uses for all sorts of things, the only noteworthy revelations would be actual proof of misuse. Does this same logic apply to the vault7 trove itself? The entire leak is basically "Spy agency has capability to spy. Yawn." once you take away the angle of "Oooo! Spooky! They might target you!" So we're already in the case that Wikileaks is trying to editorialize the content for an agenda, which we know is to cause damage to the US intel community. (They haven't been friends for a long time, in well documented ways.) We also know that Wikileaks is withholding the full extent of what they know or not, and are choosing what to reveal (which is a tactic well know to be used to shape narratives). Why should we care what Wikileaks has to say on this matter, for the exact reason you so helpfully pointed out? They're a biased source, not disclosing their full knowledge and seeking to manipulate us, who haven't actually shown any evidence of wrong-doing.
    - willstrafach 9y ago
      You might be missing that I do fully agree with you. I guess if it is out there anyway though, makes some sense for there to be discussion on HN as it is a technical forum. Probably safe to skip their "analysis" and only pay mind to the source document.

If they are trying to filter something, they are doing a pretty awful job. Everything released so far in Vault 7 appears to simply be a dump of intelligence collection tradecraft/methods.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago

As a purely hypothetical example: * The vault7 trove could contain documents on CIA minimization and targeting rules, which show that they carefully avoid US targets and only go for high value targets with these tools, and further could contain mostly exploits targeted at industrial/military targets. Wikileaks has focused on how they could use the (selectively) released tools to target civilians. By selecting to release only tools that (could) target civilian appliances, hiding the fact that most tools are built for, eg, industrial/military targets, and that CIA procedures focus on industrial/military targets, Wikileaks effectively shapes the narrative to be about how the CIA is targeting civilians, when the reality is that they're targeting high value, perfectly appropriate things (which just happen to occasionally use technology others do as well). * Sowing that kind of distrust between US civilians and one of their intel agencies would be a perfectly normal PSYOPs goal, and in-line with what you'd expect from, eg, RT. That Wikileaks has decided to editorialize their content in such a way means that you now need to evaluate those kinds of scenarios when thinking about the things they release, instead of just focusing on the content. It reduces their brand value significantly.

willstrafach 9y ago
You make a good point regarding what they might be trying to do. But do you think many people are actually buying it? Anyone could think of malicious uses for all sorts of things, the only noteworthy revelations would be actual proof of misuse.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  > Anyone could think of malicious uses for all sorts of things, the only noteworthy revelations would be actual proof of misuse. Does this same logic apply to the vault7 trove itself? The entire leak is basically "Spy agency has capability to spy. Yawn." once you take away the angle of "Oooo! Spooky! They might target you!" So we're already in the case that Wikileaks is trying to editorialize the content for an agenda, which we know is to cause damage to the US intel community. (They haven't been friends for a long time, in well documented ways.) We also know that Wikileaks is withholding the full extent of what they know or not, and are choosing what to reveal (which is a tactic well know to be used to shape narratives). Why should we care what Wikileaks has to say on this matter, for the exact reason you so helpfully pointed out? They're a biased source, not disclosing their full knowledge and seeking to manipulate us, who haven't actually shown any evidence of wrong-doing.
  - willstrafach 9y ago
    You might be missing that I do fully agree with you. I guess if it is out there anyway though, makes some sense for there to be discussion on HN as it is a technical forum. Probably safe to skip their "analysis" and only pay mind to the source document.