19 ms·

> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets f

> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked materials would be from the CIA, NSA, or the New York Times. WikiLeaks obtained and published emails from a data breach committed against an American intelligence consulting company by an “Anonymous” and LulzSec-affiliated hacker. According to that hacker, Assange indirectly asked him to spam that victim company again. This is almost certainly sabu/Hector Monsegur. [1] This guy put Jeremy Hammond [2] behind bars, and now he's being used to bring down Julian Freaking Assange. More lives ruined than you can count on one hand. I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. Not once. Julian Assange is in solitary confinement in a prison on bullshit charges, and this is just another one. Stand up for journalists. Real journalists. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Monsegur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Monsegur [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond edit: as pointed out below, Assange was moved from solitary confinement in February.

JoeSmithson 6y ago
Assange is not in solitary confinement, please don't spread falsehoods
- kekebo 6y ago
  He used to be until end of january this year. While outdated it's not a falsehood per se.
- nickysielicki 6y ago
  Thanks for this, I hadn't seen the news that he had been moved out of solitary confinement. I'm happy to be wrong, that's good news. I'll edit the parent comment. > Jailed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is no longer being kept in solitary confinement and his health is improving, his spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson told reporters on Tuesday. - Feb. 2020 [1] [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-assange/wikileaks-founder-assanges-health-improving-in-prison-spokesman-idUSKBN20C19Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-assange/wikileaks...
  - JoeSmithson 6y ago
    I don't believe he was in solitary confinement up until then. Here is the UN (Nils Melzer) saying he is not, in May 2019 [0] > "Although Assange is not held in solitary confinement..." There were photo leaks early on showing Assange interacting with other prisoners, with the leaker saying he was popular. I believe what Wikileaks refer to as "solitary confinement" is being put on the medical wing, and not in his normal cell. Obviously Wikileaks are interested in making his imprisonment seem as harsh as possible. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
et2o 6y ago
He has published numerous falsehoods. Please don’t buy this uncritically.
- softwarejosh 6y ago
  Please list your sources when discrediting someone
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
thatlongthrow1 6y ago
>I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never once published anything that has been proven false. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/885395248612085760 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/885395248612085760 He has helped launder edited material from Russian state sponsored hackers in the past. That is one instance, should I find more?
- AndyMcConachie 6y ago
  The only conclusion I can raise from people like yourself who argue Julian Assange be imprisoned is that you welcome ignorance. You genuinely wish to not know what powerful people are behaving in this world. And that conclusion is in many ways scarier to me than the fact that he is being prosecuted for the crime of journalism.
  - enraged_camel 6y ago
    This is a ridiculously bad faith allegation. Is that really the only conclusion you can raise?
    - nkurz 6y ago
      You're right, but your argument would be stronger if you could offer some alternatives. What other conclusions would you suggest?
    - thatlongthrow1 6y ago
      It is amazing how acidic this topic is. You can't document Assange's drifting from seemingly neutral leader of a leak network staffed by individuals across the world to a lone operator of a clearly biased outfit, without people throwing their accounts into the fire. Making personal attacks like a fella just did here minutes ago. I didn't think so many people would be saying "Russia anything is lies!" so vehemently given the activist/journalist/governmental sources documenting Kremlin's role in fostering relations with Wikileaks while spinning up their own personas like Guccifer 2.0 to act as fronts for the distribution of hacked data to Assange.
- 6y ago
DangerousPie 6y ago
Real journalists don't just publish anything they can get their hands on with no regards for where the data came from, for what purposes it was given to them and whom their publication might harm.
- ReptileMan 6y ago
  True. They first ask their editor what the agenda is that week and then selectively and out of context craft the narrative. Case in point NYT in the past decade. Or WaPo. Or Fox in ages past.
- travmatt 6y ago
  Don’t worry, he doesn’t publish everything he’s given. https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/9/9/12864328/wikileaks-threat-reporters-syria-russia-emails https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/9/9/12864328/wiki...
cm2187 6y ago
Not sure I understand your point, he is not being indicted for publishing false information. Assuming he never did, why would that make the charges bullshit?
- nickysielicki 6y ago
  I'm not saying his record means the charges are bullshit, but I'm saying if the charges are bullshit and his record is infallible then the implication is that we live under a government without freedom of the press, where truthful hard-hitting journalism gets you put in prison. If you don't believe that Assange has done truthful hard-hitting journalism, or you believe that he isn't a journalist at all, then you can maintain the belief that we don't put journalists in prison while sitting idle as he rots in prison, because he is not a True Journalist. "We wouldn't do that to True Journalists. Assange is different."
  - hilbertseries 6y ago
    To be fair, true journalists don’t host shows on RT.
  - vwarner1411 6y ago
    Freedom of the Press doesn't give you carte blanche to disclose state secrets without repercussions. Just because the information is hard hitting doesn't give you a pass on the crimes you committed to get it.
  - balls187 6y ago
    Freedom of the Press has limitations. Example, as a journalist you cannot just walk into a US Army base and start reporting.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      Gee, that sounds problematic. We give them $750B/yr, they kill innocent people around the world, and they don't submit to public oversight? I wish we lived in a free society...
raverbashing 6y ago
> Stand up for journalists. Real journalists. Of which Assange isn't He was more than happy to support the current administration in the electoral process, with heavy editorializing and biases So, I guess sorry they renegued on their promises? Oh but he should have guessed it.
ShamelessC 6y ago
I'm generally on Assange's side in all of this. I agree he shouldn't be charged and this is all a disgrace. Having said that, I once went to wikileaks and found a PDF of Steve Job's supposed STD test which claimed he was HIV positive. That was a surprise to me as my understanding was that he died of cancer. I looked into it and no one could corroborate the story and the general consensus seemed to be that it was faked. Even if it was real, I struggle to see why it's important to leak the private medical records of someone with a deadly STD, although I'm sure there are multiple perspectives on this.
- 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
  HIV can cause Kaposi’s sarcoma, so that could have caused his cancer. It’s actually not that far outside the realm of possibility. Condom use was not very common in the 70s and one can live with HIV dormant for many years.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    But the relevant question is "Why should a person's private medical history be public knowledge?"
    - 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
      As an officer of a public corporation, how much privacy can one expect? I agree that he had a right to privacy, same as anyone else.
      - arcticfox 6y ago
        > I agree that he had a right to privacy, same as anyone else. Agreed. > As an officer of a public corporation, how much privacy can one expect? So we should violate his rights without repercussion? Lost me.
        0x8BADF00D 6y ago
pelliphant 6y ago
> Stand up for journalists. Real journalists. Are you trying to imply that assange is a journalist?
newacct583 6y ago
> I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. That is a very odd misdirection given the context. He's not accused of lying, he's accused of computer crimes. I mean, your medical records and browsing history may be 100% true and verifiably copied from original sources, but if I steal and distribute them I'm still going to jail.
onetimemanytime 6y ago
>>I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. Not once. Assuming what you said is true, don't you think that some things should be secret, at least for a while?
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  War crimes?
  - onetimemanytime 6y ago
    wikileaks published just vids of war crimes right? At some point they lost it. Maybe going against USA drove them to the arms of Russia but they lost their innocence.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      Even if you think that, the charges are all still from the period of the Iraq leaks.
peroporque 6y ago
Also important to remember: the supposed "rape charges" turned out to have been fabricated by the swedish police. There never was an actual rape accusation against him.
- pelliphant 6y ago
  That is not true. The only valid point you could make here is that the swedish legal system defines a broad range of "non-consentual things related to sex" as rape, where it would get defined as something else in other countries.
- DavidVoid 6y ago
  If you're going to make such grand accusations against the Swedish police then at least cite a damn source. With all the baseless claims this thread almost reads like /r/conspiracy ffs.
  - okamiueru 6y ago
    I thought this was well established and obvious for anyone who followed the case. The timeline for this whole ordeal, the motivation for the original complaints, the contact the suppose victims had and the messages they wrote after the fact. Not to mention the breach in anonymity for these cases in Sweden. As such, I don't think these are "grand accusations", this is more what one should reasonably conclude, if you followed the case from the beginning.
    - DavidVoid 6y ago
      If it's such a "well established and obvious fact" then cite some sources and give some proof that the accusations were faked.
      - thg 6y ago
        https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
bitexploder 6y ago
Wait. Are you taking these accusations at face value and saying that is okay here? Or are you contending that the accusations are false? I think it is a pretty big deal if you ask a hacking group to hack for you.
mint2 6y ago
> I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. This talking point is frankly irrelevant. Actually it itself illustrates how only cherry picking info to reveal is as deceptive as out right lies, but even more difficult to combat. Want a clear example of how showing only true information is deceptive? Google Mormon bubbling. Yes the example is distasteful but it’s a very clear illustration of how easy it is to use selective information to deceive perception and make people appear to be doing something they are not, potentially hurting them.
phkahler 6y ago
>> I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. Not really relevant. Assange was acting directly against the interests of the United States. He was indiscriminately dumping large quantities of classified (or otherwise secret) information on the internet for the world to see.
- Darvon 6y ago
  In which jurisdiction is it illegal for an Australian to publish evidence of American war crimes?
Kiro 6y ago
> I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. You need an edit for that incorrect statement as well, as many comments have already pointed out.
tptacek 6y ago
"Never proven false" is an Orwellian turn of phrase, because WL's concern with accuracy is obviously not overriding: https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/757599082928082944?lang=en https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/757599082928082944?lang=en Also: why would I care that Hammond was prosecuted? Hammond was caught dead to rights.
- ryanlol 6y ago
  FWIW Zeynep isn’t concerned with accuracy either, WL did not dump private info of almost every woman in Turkey. This is simply a strange misattribution, the dump came via Emma Best of DDoSecrets, http://web.archive.org/web/20160727193612/https://twitter.com/natsecgeek/status/758059030527021056 http://web.archive.org/web/20160727193612/https://twitter.co...
  - fwklein 6y ago
    Why is this being downvoted? It's true and has been explained by Emma Best herself https://archive.is/0VsQR https://archive.is/0VsQR
    - morelisp 6y ago
      The parent says > Zeynep isn’t concerned with accuracy either But your link says > Zeynep Tufekci never lied, exaggerated or retracted her article (which was accurate). So I don't see how one explains the other.
      - fwklein 6y ago
        Emma Best published those documents and not WikiLeaks. That's what I thought was the correction.
      - ryanlol 6y ago
        Emma Best isn’t being very clear here. In her tweet she very clearly disagrees with Zeynep Tufekcis claims, but for whatever reason the blog is more forgiving. In any case it’s quite clear that Zeynep wasn’t correct when she claimed that WL dumped this data. WL only tweeted a link to the dump shared by Emma Best, who now operates a “competitor” to WL, DDoSecrets. I’m not trying to suggest that WL has an amazing track record. I just think that if Zeynep wanted to do the right thing she’d have retracted her claim that WL dumped this data.
ilikehurdles 6y ago
Wow. I had no idea the guy being HackThisSite was involved in the Stratfor leaks, nor that he was imprisoned for it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
WhoIsSatoshi 6y ago
thank you for speaking up - there's a lot of fake noise, don't mind it - the message carries through: glad to know others are out there!
csharptwdec19 6y ago
This smells to me just a bit. If this knowledge was disclosed sooner (Because, lets face it, they've loved to spurt out claims about bad things Assange has done,) I would expect a non-negligible number of Wikileaks supporters to stop. It's one thing to have leaks fed to you, it's another to actively encourage people to do so and name targets. So... Why are we only hearing about this -now-?
plandis 6y ago
> Stand up for journalists. Real journalists. Are you trying to claim Assange is a journalist? How many credible journalists do you know that provide lists of targets with the intent to illegally hack?
lowtolerance 6y ago
Assange is not a journalist of any sort, real or otherwise. Journalists don’t actively participate in espionage, they don’t cozy up to ratfucking crooks like Roger Stone. They don’t withhold potentially damaging information because it might harm that align with most closely with their views. And if you believe nothing Wikileaks has ever published has been proven false, then I have a great opportunity for you to buy some waterfront property in Florida.
gerland 6y ago
I will give you a upvote and it will clean my conscience, so I don't have to do anything about this anymore.

JoeSmithson 6y ago

Assange is not in solitary confinement, please don't spread falsehoods

kekebo 6y ago
He used to be until end of january this year. While outdated it's not a falsehood per se.
nickysielicki 6y ago
Thanks for this, I hadn't seen the news that he had been moved out of solitary confinement. I'm happy to be wrong, that's good news. I'll edit the parent comment. > Jailed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is no longer being kept in solitary confinement and his health is improving, his spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson told reporters on Tuesday. - Feb. 2020 [1] [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-assange/wikileaks-founder-assanges-health-improving-in-prison-spokesman-idUSKBN20C19Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-assange/wikileaks...
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  I don't believe he was in solitary confinement up until then. Here is the UN (Nils Melzer) saying he is not, in May 2019 [0] > "Although Assange is not held in solitary confinement..." There were photo leaks early on showing Assange interacting with other prisoners, with the leaker saying he was popular. I believe what Wikileaks refer to as "solitary confinement" is being put on the medical wing, and not in his normal cell. Obviously Wikileaks are interested in making his imprisonment seem as harsh as possible. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

et2o 6y ago

He has published numerous falsehoods. Please don’t buy this uncritically.

softwarejosh 6y ago
Please list your sources when discrediting someone

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

thatlongthrow1 6y ago

>I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never once published anything that has been proven false. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/885395248612085760 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/885395248612085760 He has helped launder edited material from Russian state sponsored hackers in the past. That is one instance, should I find more?

AndyMcConachie 6y ago
The only conclusion I can raise from people like yourself who argue Julian Assange be imprisoned is that you welcome ignorance. You genuinely wish to not know what powerful people are behaving in this world. And that conclusion is in many ways scarier to me than the fact that he is being prosecuted for the crime of journalism.
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  This is a ridiculously bad faith allegation. Is that really the only conclusion you can raise?
  - nkurz 6y ago
    You're right, but your argument would be stronger if you could offer some alternatives. What other conclusions would you suggest?
  - thatlongthrow1 6y ago
    It is amazing how acidic this topic is. You can't document Assange's drifting from seemingly neutral leader of a leak network staffed by individuals across the world to a lone operator of a clearly biased outfit, without people throwing their accounts into the fire. Making personal attacks like a fella just did here minutes ago. I didn't think so many people would be saying "Russia anything is lies!" so vehemently given the activist/journalist/governmental sources documenting Kremlin's role in fostering relations with Wikileaks while spinning up their own personas like Guccifer 2.0 to act as fronts for the distribution of hacked data to Assange.
6y ago

DangerousPie 6y ago

Real journalists don't just publish anything they can get their hands on with no regards for where the data came from, for what purposes it was given to them and whom their publication might harm.

ReptileMan 6y ago
True. They first ask their editor what the agenda is that week and then selectively and out of context craft the narrative. Case in point NYT in the past decade. Or WaPo. Or Fox in ages past.
travmatt 6y ago
Don’t worry, he doesn’t publish everything he’s given. https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/9/9/12864328/wikileaks-threat-reporters-syria-russia-emails https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/9/9/12864328/wiki...

cm2187 6y ago

Not sure I understand your point, he is not being indicted for publishing false information. Assuming he never did, why would that make the charges bullshit?

nickysielicki 6y ago
I'm not saying his record means the charges are bullshit, but I'm saying if the charges are bullshit and his record is infallible then the implication is that we live under a government without freedom of the press, where truthful hard-hitting journalism gets you put in prison. If you don't believe that Assange has done truthful hard-hitting journalism, or you believe that he isn't a journalist at all, then you can maintain the belief that we don't put journalists in prison while sitting idle as he rots in prison, because he is not a True Journalist. "We wouldn't do that to True Journalists. Assange is different."
- hilbertseries 6y ago
  To be fair, true journalists don’t host shows on RT.
- vwarner1411 6y ago
  Freedom of the Press doesn't give you carte blanche to disclose state secrets without repercussions. Just because the information is hard hitting doesn't give you a pass on the crimes you committed to get it.
- balls187 6y ago
  Freedom of the Press has limitations. Example, as a journalist you cannot just walk into a US Army base and start reporting.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Gee, that sounds problematic. We give them $750B/yr, they kill innocent people around the world, and they don't submit to public oversight? I wish we lived in a free society...

raverbashing 6y ago

> Stand up for journalists. Real journalists. Of which Assange isn't He was more than happy to support the current administration in the electoral process, with heavy editorializing and biases So, I guess sorry they renegued on their promises? Oh but he should have guessed it.

ShamelessC 6y ago

I'm generally on Assange's side in all of this. I agree he shouldn't be charged and this is all a disgrace. Having said that, I once went to wikileaks and found a PDF of Steve Job's supposed STD test which claimed he was HIV positive. That was a surprise to me as my understanding was that he died of cancer. I looked into it and no one could corroborate the story and the general consensus seemed to be that it was faked. Even if it was real, I struggle to see why it's important to leak the private medical records of someone with a deadly STD, although I'm sure there are multiple perspectives on this.

0x8BADF00D 6y ago
HIV can cause Kaposi’s sarcoma, so that could have caused his cancer. It’s actually not that far outside the realm of possibility. Condom use was not very common in the 70s and one can live with HIV dormant for many years.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  But the relevant question is "Why should a person's private medical history be public knowledge?"
  - 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
    As an officer of a public corporation, how much privacy can one expect? I agree that he had a right to privacy, same as anyone else.
    - arcticfox 6y ago
      > I agree that he had a right to privacy, same as anyone else. Agreed. > As an officer of a public corporation, how much privacy can one expect? So we should violate his rights without repercussion? Lost me.
      - 0x8BADF00D 6y ago

pelliphant 6y ago

> Stand up for journalists. Real journalists. Are you trying to imply that assange is a journalist?

newacct583 6y ago

> I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. That is a very odd misdirection given the context. He's not accused of lying, he's accused of computer crimes. I mean, your medical records and browsing history may be 100% true and verifiably copied from original sources, but if I steal and distribute them I'm still going to jail.

onetimemanytime 6y ago

>>I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. Not once. Assuming what you said is true, don't you think that some things should be secret, at least for a while?

boomboomsubban 6y ago
War crimes?
- onetimemanytime 6y ago
  wikileaks published just vids of war crimes right? At some point they lost it. Maybe going against USA drove them to the arms of Russia but they lost their innocence.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Even if you think that, the charges are all still from the period of the Iraq leaks.

peroporque 6y ago

Also important to remember: the supposed "rape charges" turned out to have been fabricated by the swedish police. There never was an actual rape accusation against him.

pelliphant 6y ago
That is not true. The only valid point you could make here is that the swedish legal system defines a broad range of "non-consentual things related to sex" as rape, where it would get defined as something else in other countries.
DavidVoid 6y ago
If you're going to make such grand accusations against the Swedish police then at least cite a damn source. With all the baseless claims this thread almost reads like /r/conspiracy ffs.
- okamiueru 6y ago
  I thought this was well established and obvious for anyone who followed the case. The timeline for this whole ordeal, the motivation for the original complaints, the contact the suppose victims had and the messages they wrote after the fact. Not to mention the breach in anonymity for these cases in Sweden. As such, I don't think these are "grand accusations", this is more what one should reasonably conclude, if you followed the case from the beginning.
  - DavidVoid 6y ago
    If it's such a "well established and obvious fact" then cite some sources and give some proof that the accusations were faked.
    - thg 6y ago
      https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...

bitexploder 6y ago

Wait. Are you taking these accusations at face value and saying that is okay here? Or are you contending that the accusations are false? I think it is a pretty big deal if you ask a hacking group to hack for you.

mint2 6y ago

> I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. This talking point is frankly irrelevant. Actually it itself illustrates how only cherry picking info to reveal is as deceptive as out right lies, but even more difficult to combat. Want a clear example of how showing only true information is deceptive? Google Mormon bubbling. Yes the example is distasteful but it’s a very clear illustration of how easy it is to use selective information to deceive perception and make people appear to be doing something they are not, potentially hurting them.

phkahler 6y ago

>> I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. Not really relevant. Assange was acting directly against the interests of the United States. He was indiscriminately dumping large quantities of classified (or otherwise secret) information on the internet for the world to see.

Darvon 6y ago
In which jurisdiction is it illegal for an Australian to publish evidence of American war crimes?

Kiro 6y ago

> I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. You need an edit for that incorrect statement as well, as many comments have already pointed out.

tptacek 6y ago

"Never proven false" is an Orwellian turn of phrase, because WL's concern with accuracy is obviously not overriding: https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/757599082928082944?lang=en https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/757599082928082944?lang=en Also: why would I care that Hammond was prosecuted? Hammond was caught dead to rights.

ryanlol 6y ago
FWIW Zeynep isn’t concerned with accuracy either, WL did not dump private info of almost every woman in Turkey. This is simply a strange misattribution, the dump came via Emma Best of DDoSecrets, http://web.archive.org/web/20160727193612/https://twitter.com/natsecgeek/status/758059030527021056 http://web.archive.org/web/20160727193612/https://twitter.co...
- fwklein 6y ago
  Why is this being downvoted? It's true and has been explained by Emma Best herself https://archive.is/0VsQR https://archive.is/0VsQR
  - morelisp 6y ago
    The parent says > Zeynep isn’t concerned with accuracy either But your link says > Zeynep Tufekci never lied, exaggerated or retracted her article (which was accurate). So I don't see how one explains the other.
    - fwklein 6y ago
      Emma Best published those documents and not WikiLeaks. That's what I thought was the correction.
    - ryanlol 6y ago
      Emma Best isn’t being very clear here. In her tweet she very clearly disagrees with Zeynep Tufekcis claims, but for whatever reason the blog is more forgiving. In any case it’s quite clear that Zeynep wasn’t correct when she claimed that WL dumped this data. WL only tweeted a link to the dump shared by Emma Best, who now operates a “competitor” to WL, DDoSecrets. I’m not trying to suggest that WL has an amazing track record. I just think that if Zeynep wanted to do the right thing she’d have retracted her claim that WL dumped this data.

ilikehurdles 6y ago

Wow. I had no idea the guy being HackThisSite was involved in the Stratfor leaks, nor that he was imprisoned for it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

WhoIsSatoshi 6y ago

thank you for speaking up - there's a lot of fake noise, don't mind it - the message carries through: glad to know others are out there!

csharptwdec19 6y ago

This smells to me just a bit. If this knowledge was disclosed sooner (Because, lets face it, they've loved to spurt out claims about bad things Assange has done,) I would expect a non-negligible number of Wikileaks supporters to stop. It's one thing to have leaks fed to you, it's another to actively encourage people to do so and name targets. So... Why are we only hearing about this -now-?

plandis 6y ago

> Stand up for journalists. Real journalists. Are you trying to claim Assange is a journalist? How many credible journalists do you know that provide lists of targets with the intent to illegally hack?

lowtolerance 6y ago

Assange is not a journalist of any sort, real or otherwise. Journalists don’t actively participate in espionage, they don’t cozy up to ratfucking crooks like Roger Stone. They don’t withhold potentially damaging information because it might harm that align with most closely with their views. And if you believe nothing Wikileaks has ever published has been proven false, then I have a great opportunity for you to buy some waterfront property in Florida.

gerland 6y ago

I will give you a upvote and it will clean my conscience, so I don't have to do anything about this anymore.