4 ms·
They never edit anything out. If they release a summarized or abridged version of something with a political spin to it, you can always find the full, unaltered
by jgg 16y ago
They never edit anything out. If they release a summarized or abridged version of something with a political spin to it, you can always find the full, unaltered sources if you bother to look on wikileaks.org.
- mcculley 16y agoThe original encrypted version of the video that WikiLeaks claimed they needed super computer time to decrypt would be a start towards the transparency they claim to value.
- drivebyacct2 16y agoThis is an interesting press for information. I too would like to see the original encrypted along with the key they found.
- brl 16y agoThe original encrypted video is not useful to anybody unless you are trying to determine who the source is. If you don't trust Wikileaks to not have tampered with the video they released, then why would you trust them if they provide something which they claim is the original encrypted version?
- mcculley 16y agoI disagree that the only use of the original video is to determine the source. I don't care who the source is and I am still interested in understanding WikiLeaks' claim that super computer time was necessary. If releasing what was leaked to them would endanger the source, they should say so. They have not released what was actually released to them if indeed what was released to them was an encrypted file. I think there is a good case for the existence of an organization that disseminates and preserves these historical artifacts. It is becoming less clear that WikiLeaks is that organization.
- tibbon 16y agoThe NYT in fact is redacting information. Wikileaks also wa working with the White House to hold back a few key pieces of info according to the NYT. Names of public figures (generals, prominent police officials, governors, warlords and senior afghan officials) have not been not redacted, though on a case-by-case basis, the names of lower-level employees have been removed. Similarly, well-known insurgent commanders or terrorists are not redacted, but the names of lower-level figures are. The types of information that have been removed from the documents include: Names or precise identifying information of sources. Names of buildings under surveillance. Names of prisoners. Names of kidnap victims. Times required for various tactical military reactions. Radio frequencies or phone numbers used in insurgent communications.
- jgg 16y agoAh, I've been reading up on this, and indeed they've redacted some information. According to Assange, this is to prevent anyone operating in the region from being attacked by insurgents. I'm guessing that it would be bad for Wikileak's publicity if they got somebody killed.
- SoftwareMaven 16y agoI would hope that their primary goal would just be to ensure nobody got killed as a result of releasing the information, regardless of Wikileak's PR.