5 ms·

People have claimed this dead man switch thing, but it just seems to counter to what Wikileaks has been doing for the last 10+ years. If they had some crazy le

by blhack 7y ago

People have claimed this dead man switch thing, but it just seems to counter to what Wikileaks has been doing for the last 10+ years. If they had some crazy leak to make, it doesn’t seem like something they would just sit on to use as personal leverage for assange.

wybiral 7y ago
> If they had some crazy leak to make, it doesn’t seem like something they would just sit on to use as personal leverage for assange. Really? They seem to have a narrow focus of interest with their leaks. I wouldn't put something like that beyond them at all.
- codewiz 7y ago
  Could you elaborate? Have they been leaking selectively?
  - wybiral 7y ago
    They seem to only care about stories that are critical of Western intelligence while ignoring the (or withholding?) leaks that don't align with that agenda.
    - wesammikhail 7y ago
      do we know what they have access to and what they are withholding? if we knew what they are withholding then we know what it is so... Sounds to me like we´re trying to read minds and apply a narrative that we cannot possibly verify. Not saying it isn´t the case but as far as I know, and I might be very wrong here, we have no evidence of them doing that. right?
      - wybiral 7y ago
        There were private messages of Assange saying he wanted the GOP to win because they wouldn't be able to get anything done, which is a hint about how he feels for US government. Maybe it's just a coincidence that they only leaked Russian-hacked emails from the GOP opponent who was critical of WikiLeaks while ignoring ongoing stories about Russia itself and remaining silent on the many GOP scandals. They were also really critical of the Panama Papers leak which exposed several cases of corruption, but again it was probably just a coincidence those were more of a condemnation of Russian oligarchs than Western intelligence.
        crdoconnor 7y ago
        Wikileaks has leaked plenty of Russian material. It hasn't stopped the McCarthyism, obviously. The red scare must go on. He was critical of some news stories about the Panama papers pushed by USAID. He did not criticize the leaks directly.
        wybiral 7y ago
        > McCarthyism You say that like there isn't overwhelming evidence of Russian influence operations in western democracies and widespread cyber warfare going on as we speak. It's one thing to make the counter argument that the US conducts influence ops and engages in cyber warfare too and you don't care one way or another about either nation, but it's not "McCarthyism" to call out aggression when Russia is clearly acting aggressive in multiple theaters. I can't speak for all of the people involved in WikiLeaks but Assange clearly has a bias against the west, particularly the Democrat party and western intelligence agencies. He also seems happy doing intel business with Russia and auctioning off classified data to the highest bidder in addition to the leaks.
        crdoconnor 7y ago
        It's McCarthyism (not to mention fantastical) to declare that Russia buying a couple of Facebook ads and operating some online trolls was the reason why the election was swung. As for the leaks: the evidence for the attribution of pretty much every hack in the last 5 years is farcically weak (e.g. IP addresses in logs). As for the supposed hack of US power plants - that was classic McCarthyism. The evidence was made up and the target was Russia.
        wybiral 7y ago
        > It's McCarthyism (not to mention fantastical) to declare that Russia buying a couple of Facebook ads and operating some online trolls was the reason why the election was swung. That's just people looking for an easy answer to a complex question. It happens everywhere. Trump may or may not have won without the assistance of Russia. But that doesn't mean Russia didn't assist. It's not McCarthyism to say that the IRA was attempting to fuel public divisions given the types of ads they were placing and events they were scheduling. And it's not McCarthyism to say that a Russian APT hacked the DNC server and leaked those emails selectively in an attempt to sway the election towards one candidate. The evidence of this is much greater than "IP addresses in logs". > As for the supposed hack of US power plants - that was classic McCarthyism. The evidence was made up and the target was Russia. Frankly I don't know enough about that, you could be right there. Bad attribution happens everywhere though, it happens with China and Iran too, so "McCarthyism" doesn't seem like a useful label here. How about Stuxnet? As far as I've seen there wasn't a ton of evidence to confirm the US was involved in that but Russia and Iran seemed happy with that explanation. The world of cyber warfare is new and we're all paranoid right now but that also doesn't mean it's all the same and it's all wrong. For the DNC hack, the US was monitoring that activity the whole time. They warned the DNC before it even happened that those servers were being probed (the fact that the DNC failed to act is unfortunate but beside the point here) and there are multiple points of evidence linking it back to Russian-based hackers. They were pretty sloppy about registering for VPN accounts and renting servers for exfiltration. One thing that amazes me about all of this is that people condemn US intelligence for intercepting data and mass collection but then they seem unable to believe that the agencies possessing those tools and access to internet companies would have evidence of events like this.
    - xorcist 7y ago
      That accusation does not make any sense considering the scope of leaks Wikileaks have published during their lifetime. Which shadowy non-Western organization wanted the whole Icelandic parliament ousted? They would probably have opted for the opposite. The impact of the organization the past few years have mainly regarded money laundering. And agencies you want to implicate in this have overwhelmingly had their connections to the subjects of those scandals.
      - jnbiche 7y ago
        The Iceland leaks were well before Assange became fixated on revenge on Hillary Clinton, and (probably related to that fixation) closely allied with Russia.
        xorcist 7y ago
        That narrative turns a blind eye to the whole history of the project and focuses on a single issue. Why push this narrative so hard? Completely without sources? It is not very helpful.
  - digsy 7y ago
    WikiLeaks turned down leaks on Russian Government during U.S. Presidential Campaign - https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...
    - ryanlol 7y ago
      Where can we read some interesting news stories on the material that WL refused to publish?
    - thevardanian 7y ago
      Yah. And Trump is still a Manchurian candidate that Russia controls. From your article: "“As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time. "WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin,” the organization wrote in a Twitter direct message when contacted by FP about the Russian cache." "A WikiLeaks spokesperson told the Daily Dot that no emails were removed from what the organization published. The spokesperson also suggested the Daily Dot was “pushing the Hillary Clinton campaign’s neo-McCarthyist conspiracy theories about critical media.”"
      - wybiral 7y ago
        > WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. They published the PizzaGate conspiracy theory.
        jm4 7y ago
        They didn’t produce that story. It came from emails in the Podesta dump. Several of them were about “pizza” and other food items and they were very, very strange. They did not seem to be talking about food. In one of those there was a reference to different color handkerchiefs and one with a map on it. It appeared to be some sort of code speak because no one normal uses the English language the way those emails do. From there, some internet detective produced an alleged list of pedophile code words that included colors and foods and there was some overlap with some of the strangest emails in the dump. Then, someone alleged a link with a famous DC pizza joint.
wapoamspomw 7y ago
>If they had some crazy leak to make, it doesn’t seem like something they would just sit on to use as personal leverage for assange. They admitted they had documents on Trump, the RNC, Russia, and Putin that they never released. The first time wikileaks (IIRC almost a decade ago) mentioned releasing Russia documents; they mysteriously never released them. Then Assange got a show on Russian television.
- zrth 7y ago
  Url please.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/assange-turned-down-documents-related-to-russian-government-corruption-2017-8 https://www.businessinsider.com.au/assange-turned-down-docum...
jnbiche 7y ago
> If they had some crazy leak to make, it doesn’t seem like something they would just sit on to use as personal leverage for assange. Really? A major part of Wikileaks has done the past 5 years has been in relation to the personal wants and desires of Julian Assange. I'm referring here to the intense focus of Wikileaks on Hillary Clinton and the DNC while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the corruption of Russia (who were helping Wikileaks attack Hillary). I understand why Assange disliked Hillary Clinton, but let's not pretend that his personal desires and vendettas didn't play a large role in Wikileaks' interference in US elections (a deed that placed him on the same moral ground as the Western intelligence agencies he so loved to criticize for similar work).
- danielscrubs 7y ago
  I don’t get it. Transparency is good, but if you do increase it a bit you are responsible for the whole worlds transparency or else shut up and sit down?

by blhack 7y ago

wybiral 7y ago

> If they had some crazy leak to make, it doesn’t seem like something they would just sit on to use as personal leverage for assange. Really? They seem to have a narrow focus of interest with their leaks. I wouldn't put something like that beyond them at all.

codewiz 7y ago
Could you elaborate? Have they been leaking selectively?
- wybiral 7y ago
  They seem to only care about stories that are critical of Western intelligence while ignoring the (or withholding?) leaks that don't align with that agenda.
  - wesammikhail 7y ago
    do we know what they have access to and what they are withholding? if we knew what they are withholding then we know what it is so... Sounds to me like we´re trying to read minds and apply a narrative that we cannot possibly verify. Not saying it isn´t the case but as far as I know, and I might be very wrong here, we have no evidence of them doing that. right?
    - wybiral 7y ago
      There were private messages of Assange saying he wanted the GOP to win because they wouldn't be able to get anything done, which is a hint about how he feels for US government. Maybe it's just a coincidence that they only leaked Russian-hacked emails from the GOP opponent who was critical of WikiLeaks while ignoring ongoing stories about Russia itself and remaining silent on the many GOP scandals. They were also really critical of the Panama Papers leak which exposed several cases of corruption, but again it was probably just a coincidence those were more of a condemnation of Russian oligarchs than Western intelligence.
      - crdoconnor 7y ago
        Wikileaks has leaked plenty of Russian material. It hasn't stopped the McCarthyism, obviously. The red scare must go on. He was critical of some news stories about the Panama papers pushed by USAID. He did not criticize the leaks directly.
        wybiral 7y ago
        > McCarthyism You say that like there isn't overwhelming evidence of Russian influence operations in western democracies and widespread cyber warfare going on as we speak. It's one thing to make the counter argument that the US conducts influence ops and engages in cyber warfare too and you don't care one way or another about either nation, but it's not "McCarthyism" to call out aggression when Russia is clearly acting aggressive in multiple theaters. I can't speak for all of the people involved in WikiLeaks but Assange clearly has a bias against the west, particularly the Democrat party and western intelligence agencies. He also seems happy doing intel business with Russia and auctioning off classified data to the highest bidder in addition to the leaks.
        crdoconnor 7y ago
        It's McCarthyism (not to mention fantastical) to declare that Russia buying a couple of Facebook ads and operating some online trolls was the reason why the election was swung. As for the leaks: the evidence for the attribution of pretty much every hack in the last 5 years is farcically weak (e.g. IP addresses in logs). As for the supposed hack of US power plants - that was classic McCarthyism. The evidence was made up and the target was Russia.
        wybiral 7y ago
        > It's McCarthyism (not to mention fantastical) to declare that Russia buying a couple of Facebook ads and operating some online trolls was the reason why the election was swung. That's just people looking for an easy answer to a complex question. It happens everywhere. Trump may or may not have won without the assistance of Russia. But that doesn't mean Russia didn't assist. It's not McCarthyism to say that the IRA was attempting to fuel public divisions given the types of ads they were placing and events they were scheduling. And it's not McCarthyism to say that a Russian APT hacked the DNC server and leaked those emails selectively in an attempt to sway the election towards one candidate. The evidence of this is much greater than "IP addresses in logs". > As for the supposed hack of US power plants - that was classic McCarthyism. The evidence was made up and the target was Russia. Frankly I don't know enough about that, you could be right there. Bad attribution happens everywhere though, it happens with China and Iran too, so "McCarthyism" doesn't seem like a useful label here. How about Stuxnet? As far as I've seen there wasn't a ton of evidence to confirm the US was involved in that but Russia and Iran seemed happy with that explanation. The world of cyber warfare is new and we're all paranoid right now but that also doesn't mean it's all the same and it's all wrong. For the DNC hack, the US was monitoring that activity the whole time. They warned the DNC before it even happened that those servers were being probed (the fact that the DNC failed to act is unfortunate but beside the point here) and there are multiple points of evidence linking it back to Russian-based hackers. They were pretty sloppy about registering for VPN accounts and renting servers for exfiltration. One thing that amazes me about all of this is that people condemn US intelligence for intercepting data and mass collection but then they seem unable to believe that the agencies possessing those tools and access to internet companies would have evidence of events like this.
  - xorcist 7y ago
    That accusation does not make any sense considering the scope of leaks Wikileaks have published during their lifetime. Which shadowy non-Western organization wanted the whole Icelandic parliament ousted? They would probably have opted for the opposite. The impact of the organization the past few years have mainly regarded money laundering. And agencies you want to implicate in this have overwhelmingly had their connections to the subjects of those scandals.
    - jnbiche 7y ago
      The Iceland leaks were well before Assange became fixated on revenge on Hillary Clinton, and (probably related to that fixation) closely allied with Russia.
      - xorcist 7y ago
        That narrative turns a blind eye to the whole history of the project and focuses on a single issue. Why push this narrative so hard? Completely without sources? It is not very helpful.
- digsy 7y ago
  WikiLeaks turned down leaks on Russian Government during U.S. Presidential Campaign - https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...
  - ryanlol 7y ago
    Where can we read some interesting news stories on the material that WL refused to publish?
  - thevardanian 7y ago
    Yah. And Trump is still a Manchurian candidate that Russia controls. From your article: "“As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time. "WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin,” the organization wrote in a Twitter direct message when contacted by FP about the Russian cache." "A WikiLeaks spokesperson told the Daily Dot that no emails were removed from what the organization published. The spokesperson also suggested the Daily Dot was “pushing the Hillary Clinton campaign’s neo-McCarthyist conspiracy theories about critical media.”"
    - wybiral 7y ago
      > WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. They published the PizzaGate conspiracy theory.
      - jm4 7y ago
        They didn’t produce that story. It came from emails in the Podesta dump. Several of them were about “pizza” and other food items and they were very, very strange. They did not seem to be talking about food. In one of those there was a reference to different color handkerchiefs and one with a map on it. It appeared to be some sort of code speak because no one normal uses the English language the way those emails do. From there, some internet detective produced an alleged list of pedophile code words that included colors and foods and there was some overlap with some of the strangest emails in the dump. Then, someone alleged a link with a famous DC pizza joint.

wapoamspomw 7y ago

>If they had some crazy leak to make, it doesn’t seem like something they would just sit on to use as personal leverage for assange. They admitted they had documents on Trump, the RNC, Russia, and Putin that they never released. The first time wikileaks (IIRC almost a decade ago) mentioned releasing Russia documents; they mysteriously never released them. Then Assange got a show on Russian television.

zrth 7y ago
Url please.
- viraptor 7y ago
  https://www.businessinsider.com.au/assange-turned-down-documents-related-to-russian-government-corruption-2017-8 https://www.businessinsider.com.au/assange-turned-down-docum...

jnbiche 7y ago

> If they had some crazy leak to make, it doesn’t seem like something they would just sit on to use as personal leverage for assange. Really? A major part of Wikileaks has done the past 5 years has been in relation to the personal wants and desires of Julian Assange. I'm referring here to the intense focus of Wikileaks on Hillary Clinton and the DNC while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the corruption of Russia (who were helping Wikileaks attack Hillary). I understand why Assange disliked Hillary Clinton, but let's not pretend that his personal desires and vendettas didn't play a large role in Wikileaks' interference in US elections (a deed that placed him on the same moral ground as the Western intelligence agencies he so loved to criticize for similar work).

danielscrubs 7y ago
I don’t get it. Transparency is good, but if you do increase it a bit you are responsible for the whole worlds transparency or else shut up and sit down?