4 ms·

I didn't down-vote but pretty good counter arguements is there really is no evidence that Russia was actually behind the leaks other than the CIA and the depart

by vivekd 8y ago

I didn't down-vote but pretty good counter arguements is there really is no evidence that Russia was actually behind the leaks other than the CIA and the department of homeland security said so. Seeing as these are the same organizations that lied to us time and time again, like lying about the cause of Benghazi, I'm not inclined to believe anything they say without evidence. These people are known liars and pretty much everything they say is a politically motivated manipulation. Sure Russia could be behind the DNC leak, but so could a 14 year old who guessed that podesta's password was password (if you believe Julian Assange's claims which haven't been denied by the DNC). It could also be a disgruntled Democratic party staffer who saw what Hillary and Podesta were like behind the scenes and said "fuck these people, the public needs to know what they're really like" Second, why is it a bad thing that Hillary's email was leaked? It gave an insight into how corrupt the Democratic party is and how corrupt our politicians are and how the democratic process is being rigged. This is a lady who ran a private email server as secretary of state. I'm happy that we were able to find out how the Democratic party rigged the campaign against Sanders and worked a little too closely with the media to ensure a Hillary victory. I'm also glad we found out the real reason for the attacks on Libya (gold reserves not protection of people). Sure it had a bad result for Trump opponents who didn't want Trump to win. But imagine it was not Trump but Obama running against Hillary and the emails had been leaked. I'm sure you and everyone else would be saying that it was a great moment for democracy instead of regarding it as a terrible mockery.

ljw1001 8y ago
You can change all the names, but all of the criticisms remain valid. It's super-easy to game an anonymous "leak" distribution platform, in particular if you're an intelligence agency. That alone should give people pause, but it doesn't.
- antpls 8y ago
  Do you have a better idea? This is an iterative process. Yes, GlobaLeaks could be used to spread fake leaks, but then it will force all democratic processes to be more transparent, in order to efficiently prove or disprove leak L or new N. How fast we can prove a piece of fact is the next step, but to get there, you have to give people the tools to spread information (true and fake) as much as possible, imho Edit : Also, this initiative is European. If you don't trust your own intelligence services, stop whining about it and come live in Europe?
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  An intelligence agency can already leak stuff to the press while remaining largely anonymous, this doesn't improve their situation nearly as much as an actual whistleblower.
  - ljw1001 8y ago
    who was the whistle-blower in the Hillary emails? Someone else gave the Pentagon papers as an example of a "good leak" and it was. But I think good leaks tend to be those, like the pentagon papers that are handled by responsible organizations (NY Times and Wash. Post in that case). The people who created this code may be just such people, but there's no reason to think someone who does git-clone on this repo is. By the way, both the Post and the Times openly solicit leaks.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      You're missing the point. If you assume some intelligence agency was behind the Clinton email leak, they could have anonymously leaked them to a range of press outlets and generated the same result. Meanwhile, Ellsberg had to work incredibly hard to prevent being caught before the Pentagon Papers went public. A site like this makes Ellsberg's life easier, while making no difference to the intelligence agency. The method of leaking has little to do with the value of the leak, someone will print almost anything. The Times and the Post regularly print items intentionally leaked for propaganda purposes, the classic example is the buildup to the Iraq War.

by vivekd 8y ago

ljw1001 8y ago

You can change all the names, but all of the criticisms remain valid. It's super-easy to game an anonymous "leak" distribution platform, in particular if you're an intelligence agency. That alone should give people pause, but it doesn't.

antpls 8y ago
Do you have a better idea? This is an iterative process. Yes, GlobaLeaks could be used to spread fake leaks, but then it will force all democratic processes to be more transparent, in order to efficiently prove or disprove leak L or new N. How fast we can prove a piece of fact is the next step, but to get there, you have to give people the tools to spread information (true and fake) as much as possible, imho Edit : Also, this initiative is European. If you don't trust your own intelligence services, stop whining about it and come live in Europe?
boomboomsubban 8y ago
An intelligence agency can already leak stuff to the press while remaining largely anonymous, this doesn't improve their situation nearly as much as an actual whistleblower.
- ljw1001 8y ago
  who was the whistle-blower in the Hillary emails? Someone else gave the Pentagon papers as an example of a "good leak" and it was. But I think good leaks tend to be those, like the pentagon papers that are handled by responsible organizations (NY Times and Wash. Post in that case). The people who created this code may be just such people, but there's no reason to think someone who does git-clone on this repo is. By the way, both the Post and the Times openly solicit leaks.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    You're missing the point. If you assume some intelligence agency was behind the Clinton email leak, they could have anonymously leaked them to a range of press outlets and generated the same result. Meanwhile, Ellsberg had to work incredibly hard to prevent being caught before the Pentagon Papers went public. A site like this makes Ellsberg's life easier, while making no difference to the intelligence agency. The method of leaking has little to do with the value of the leak, someone will print almost anything. The Times and the Post regularly print items intentionally leaked for propaganda purposes, the classic example is the buildup to the Iraq War.