3 ms·

You're implying that Wikileaks did not release everything they have. Is this an assumption or is there evidence of this?

by lolc 9y ago

jacquesm 9y ago
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high-ground/ https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-mora... Stating that Assange hoped that the leaks of the DNC emails would hurt the Clinton campaign clearly shifts WL from being 'just a conduit' for leaked material to being a political operator in its own right. An organization devoted to transparency should not have an agenda of its own, this in contrast to Assange's previous claims that he did not have a favorite side.
- lolc 9y ago
  The Wired article makes Wikileaks look bad in other regards but does not contain evidence that material was not published. You implied that Wikileaks has a selective publication policy. I still don't see any evidence of that. Of course it's hard to prove existence of what they didn't publish. And it is plausible their personal opinions would influence their publication decisions. But that's simply an allegation, not evidence of it happening.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Short of leak from within Wikileaks (or what's left of it) that will be a hard (or even impossible) one to prove. In the meantime, Assange taking sides in an election battle does not help to promote the independence of WL. There is other evidence of WL heavily editing their output so witholding stuff that does not suit their agenda would seem to be a reasonable assumption, absent hard proof to the contrary (which they could easily provide!).
    - lolc 9y ago
      You're saying it is easy for Wikileaks to provide hard proof they're not withholding stuff not suiting their agenda. How could they do it?
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        3rd party audit of materials received and materials leaked to the public. Not that they'll ever agree to that, but if they really valued transparency they could do that. Choosing the auditor would be an interesting exercise. Glenn Greenwald would be an interesting choice, Edward Snowden another.
        lolc 9y ago
        What you suggest is actually a way. How would the auditor verify having received the complete dump though? It's not like there is a verifiable index of the material available to Wikileaks. Also I think it would be hard to satisfy the critics; next to the impossibility of securing funding for such an undertaking. On top of everything else Wikileaks would risk exposing their sources. So please don't say it's easy for Wikileaks to get an audit. Looking at it from another angle: If leakers are unhappy how Wikileaks is publishing, they may well decide to leak somewhere else too. That happening would actually lend credence to the claim that Wikileaks is redacting for political reasons.
        jacquesm 9y ago
        I do tech DD for a living and from my own experience it is very hard to fudge the record for someone who deals with this kind of thing regularly. I thought I had covered any fears about source exposure and being believable with my two suggestions for who could do this. > That happening would actually lend credence to the claim that Wikileaks is redacting for political reasons. Openleaks and the Intercept come to mind.
        lolc 9y ago
        > I do tech DD for a living and from my own experience it is very hard to fudge the record for someone who deals with this kind of thing regularly. I assume it would be hard to pre-redact documents to hide your omissions. Outright omission of documents from a dump would be harder to detect in my view. But I must admit I'm ignorant of the techniques available. > I though I had covered any fears about source exposure and being believable with my two suggestions for who could do this. Partly. In my view it's up to the sources to decide who gets to see the original dump. They chose Wikileaks. Maybe they did so for reasons we'd judge nefarious but we are not free to assume they'd agree with sharing the originals more widely. > Openleaks and the Intercept come to mind. Did they get dumps Wikileaks had published before? Where the version published by Wikileaks turned out to have been selectively redacted for political reasons?

You're implying that Wikileaks did not release everything they have. Is this an assumption or is there evidence of this?

by lolc 9y ago

You're implying that Wikileaks did not release everything they have. Is this an assumption or is there evidence of this?

jacquesm 9y ago

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high-ground/ https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-mora... Stating that Assange hoped that the leaks of the DNC emails would hurt the Clinton campaign clearly shifts WL from being 'just a conduit' for leaked material to being a political operator in its own right. An organization devoted to transparency should not have an agenda of its own, this in contrast to Assange's previous claims that he did not have a favorite side.

lolc 9y ago
The Wired article makes Wikileaks look bad in other regards but does not contain evidence that material was not published. You implied that Wikileaks has a selective publication policy. I still don't see any evidence of that. Of course it's hard to prove existence of what they didn't publish. And it is plausible their personal opinions would influence their publication decisions. But that's simply an allegation, not evidence of it happening.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Short of leak from within Wikileaks (or what's left of it) that will be a hard (or even impossible) one to prove. In the meantime, Assange taking sides in an election battle does not help to promote the independence of WL. There is other evidence of WL heavily editing their output so witholding stuff that does not suit their agenda would seem to be a reasonable assumption, absent hard proof to the contrary (which they could easily provide!).
  - lolc 9y ago
    You're saying it is easy for Wikileaks to provide hard proof they're not withholding stuff not suiting their agenda. How could they do it?
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      3rd party audit of materials received and materials leaked to the public. Not that they'll ever agree to that, but if they really valued transparency they could do that. Choosing the auditor would be an interesting exercise. Glenn Greenwald would be an interesting choice, Edward Snowden another.
      - lolc 9y ago
        What you suggest is actually a way. How would the auditor verify having received the complete dump though? It's not like there is a verifiable index of the material available to Wikileaks. Also I think it would be hard to satisfy the critics; next to the impossibility of securing funding for such an undertaking. On top of everything else Wikileaks would risk exposing their sources. So please don't say it's easy for Wikileaks to get an audit. Looking at it from another angle: If leakers are unhappy how Wikileaks is publishing, they may well decide to leak somewhere else too. That happening would actually lend credence to the claim that Wikileaks is redacting for political reasons.
        jacquesm 9y ago
        I do tech DD for a living and from my own experience it is very hard to fudge the record for someone who deals with this kind of thing regularly. I thought I had covered any fears about source exposure and being believable with my two suggestions for who could do this. > That happening would actually lend credence to the claim that Wikileaks is redacting for political reasons. Openleaks and the Intercept come to mind.
        lolc 9y ago
        > I do tech DD for a living and from my own experience it is very hard to fudge the record for someone who deals with this kind of thing regularly. I assume it would be hard to pre-redact documents to hide your omissions. Outright omission of documents from a dump would be harder to detect in my view. But I must admit I'm ignorant of the techniques available. > I though I had covered any fears about source exposure and being believable with my two suggestions for who could do this. Partly. In my view it's up to the sources to decide who gets to see the original dump. They chose Wikileaks. Maybe they did so for reasons we'd judge nefarious but we are not free to assume they'd agree with sharing the originals more widely. > Openleaks and the Intercept come to mind. Did they get dumps Wikileaks had published before? Where the version published by Wikileaks turned out to have been selectively redacted for political reasons?