12 ms·
For those making quips about Russia: Assange has already claimed the source was _not_ Russia. https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/julian-assange-our-source-is-n
by dleslie 6y ago
For those making quips about Russia: Assange has already claimed the source was _not_ Russia.
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/julian-assange-our-source-is-not-the-russian-government https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/julian-assange-our-source...
Edit: oh wow, to -2 in less than 2 minutes.
It's a point of information, not an endorsement.
Double-edit: Ha, ok, colour me shocked. The discussion thread is excellent and I thank everyone involved for remaining civil.
- lallysingh 6y agoI think part of it is the source. Fox News, or Huffington Post as another example, are arguably pretty biased in their coverage.
- dleslie 6y agoIt is the primary source; he made the claim while interviewed by Hannity.
- sudosysgen 6y agoYou always have to take bias in context. If the source is claiming that someone said something to them in an interview and the person agrees, then bias is irrelevant.
- rs999gti 6y agoFox News actually reports news from the news wires and the local Fox new station affiliates. I think that gives Fox News a bit more credibility than HuffPo, which sometimes reads like Gawker. Though they are still both very partisan.
- DangerousPie 6y agoThen why not link to the news wires directly?
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoBecause the interview in question was conducted by Fox News.
- 50ckpuppet 6y agoand Fox News wouldn't run the interview if they didn't like the results, so in that sense they are biased, just like NPR,PBS,CNN,MSNBC and everybody else.
- merpnderp 6y agoBecause Assange made the claims on Fox News. This is the source.
- dalbasal 6y agoJeez! Click the link before criticizing it. It's a primary source, an interview with Assange. It's not a wire reprint.
- aty268 6y agoTech bubbles are a cancer and a drain on the progression of ideas. Most people on HN don't care though.
- komali2 6y agoPeople keep saying I live "in a bubble" yet I find myself having debates and arguments with people at all levels of my social circle that span vastly different ideas. The only time I encounter homogeneous ideology is when I'm in a conversation with an old friend from south Carolina or texas that identifies as conservative. It seems that people that used to have a cornucopia of various ideas have kinda melded into a singular ideology. 15 years ago I might have agreed with you... Not so much anymore.
- aty268 6y agoEveryone in a bubble thinks that they're being exposed to new contrarian ideas. You absolutely are, but not contrarian ideas being seriously discussed outside your bubble. The valley is the obvious example, contrarian ideas are tossed around like hotcakes, and yet it's so contrarian to support trump nobody does it. How many open Trump supporters do you interact with a week? Or would you feel comfortable telling your coworkers you plan to vote for Trump? He very well may win this election.
- komali2 6y ago> How many open Trump supporters do you interact with a week? As I said, about 5-8 depending on how active my group chats are. Why would I tell my coworkers I'm voting for Trump? I'm not going to. So yes I would feel uncomfortable lying. I don't think this is the same as bush era politics. How can I exist with coworkers while we do anti racist book clubs, and then announce support for the man who calls black protesters thugs? We don't have room for racism at my company. That's only a political issue because the republican party nominated a racist - I don't see how that's our problem.
- aty268 6y ago
- cwhiz 6y agoAn interview with Hannity? I can think of nothing more concrete.
- luckylion 6y agoAn interview with Assange. The interviewer doesn't change what Assange says, does it?
- ciarannolan 6y agoIt does when the interviewer is more interested in putting on a show than hearing from a source. Read the transcript (or see my post above). Constant interruptions, reinterpretations, jumping around in timelines, etc. It's a horrible interview meant to extract one or two talking points.
- dalbasal 6y agoThat's the primary source, whether or not you like the interviewer, company he works for, what his ulterior motives are, etc. This is the interview where the question was asked and answered. You can disbelieve what Assange says if you don't believe him. Discounting what Assange says, explicitly, clearly and deliberately because Hannity is interviewing him is foolish. It was a friendly interview. So what.
- ciarannolan 6y ago> That's the primary source, whether or not you like the interviewer, company he works for, what his ulterior motives are, etc. Weird how I didn't mention any of these in my comment. The problem is that the interview is not designed to elicit credible testimony. It's designed to put on a show. Thus, I discount it heavily.
- me_me_me 6y agoWell, if the interviewer was CIA interrogator...
- 6y ago
- jasonlotito 6y agoTwo things: First, he can't say it wasn't Russia. What he can say is who it was. The difference is who that person was influence by. For example, I can say it wasn't Russia, but the person could actually be an agent of Russia without me knowing. I wouldn't be lying, but my statement wouldn't be true. So, that's why people don't consider the denial to be concrete. Secondly, about your second point, many people will downvote you simply for complaining about downvotes. Next time, just wait. Votes eventually land where they should be, and complaining about votes adds nothing to the conversation.
- ciarannolan 6y ago>HANNITY: Can you say to the American people unequivocally that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails -- can you tell the American people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia... >ASSANGE: Yes. >HANNITY: ... or anybody associated with Russia? >ASSANGE: We -- we can say and we have said repeatedly... >HANNITY: Right. >ASSANGE: ... over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party. He's basically saying that Vlad didn't call him up one day and say "Russia wants to give you some files." No shit. ----- > Researchers from the Atlanta-based cybersecurity firm Dell SecureWorks reported that the emails had been obtained through a data theft carried out by the hacker group Fancy Bear, a group of Russian intelligence-linked hackers that were also responsible for cyberattacks that targeted the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), resulting in WikiLeaks publishing emails from those hacks. > On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that the Russian government was behind the hack and gave to WikiLeaks a collection of hacked emails from John Podesta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_emails#Data_theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_emails#Data_theft > "The committee found no reason to dispute the intelligence community’s conclusions," Sen. Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the panel, said. https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-report-affirms-u-s-intelligence-findings-on-2016-russian-interference-11587483408 https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-report-affirms-u-s-intel... > Following a comprehensive investigation that CrowdStrike detailed publicly, the company concluded in May 2016 that two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries breached the DNC network. https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... > We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf etc, etc, etc. I thought this was pretty well accepted at this point.
- seebetter 6y agohttps://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/01/the-download-on-the-dnc-hack/ https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/01/the-download-on-the-dnc-... He won't elaborate on the DNC hack because he says he has no original reporting. Does that mean no one on the forums or in the subculture talks about it? He said: "Based on what I’ve learned over the past decade studying Russian language, culture and hacking communities, my sense is that if the Russians were responsible and wanted to hide that fact — they’d have left a trail leading back to some other country’s door." And note, the founders of phishing in the early 90s were mostly teenage kids, maybe 14-16. It doesn't take a state actor to 'spear phish'.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24503529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24503529 FWIW, sometimes my posts get significantly downvoted at first, and within a few hours end up with a lot more upvotes. I try to not care in the first place, but sometimes this makes me feel better.
- bryanlarsen 6y agoI have the opinion that undeserved initial downvotes usually end up with more upvotes than the post would originally get. If I see a grey comment that I think shouldn't be grey, I'll upvote. But HN isn't fully dynamic, so that upvote won't be visible to people who already have the page open, so they'll see it as grey too and may also be likely to upvote.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y agoSo maybe undeserved early downvotes act like a trampoline. Nice insight.
- teekert 6y agoThis indeed seems to happen a lot in my experience. I mean I see it in almost all my posts, and then they usually go up (or not :))
- emerged 6y agoI've noticed this very consistently. It seems the users who jump on posts early are an entirely different sort from the users who wait for posts to gain some popularity. I could imagine various reasons why that may be the case, but they are just speculation.
- some_random 6y agoAh yes of course, it would be really inconvenient if Assange was publishing information given to him by Russian intelligence to interfere in the 2016 US elections. Wow what a bummer that would be.
- ardy42 6y ago> For those making quips about Russia: Assange has already claimed the source was _not_ Russia. Assuming Assange is telling the truth, how would he even know who the ultimate source was? I mean, Russia might be sophisticated enough to not pass on information like this using someone with an obvious connection to them. It's not like their agents are required to have an accent out of a Bond movie and wear a KGB/FSB uniform all the time.
- V6HBGNQHU 6y agoMaybe because he know the source's name rhymed with breath itch.
- llbowers 6y agoPlease, for the good of this site and the wishes of his own family, don't post baseless conspiracy theories like that. Edit - as the original post I was responding to has been removed I have edited out my response to it delving into more information.
- mhh__ 6y agoUnless they wanted it known, that is most likely the case. The non/-statements by Assange around Seth Rich are worth considering too, the Mueller report apparently establishes a chronology whereby he would've known these documents weren't coming from a single person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_...
- endtime 6y ago> Assuming Assange is telling the truth, how would he even know who the ultimate source was? If he received the emails from someone with direct access to them - e.g. someone who worked for the DNC - Occam's Razor would suggest a lack of Russian involvement. (Not saying this is the case, just pointing out one possibility.)
- dencodev 6y ago
- mrlala 6y ago>It's a point of information, not an endorsement Well, you have to realize when you link Fox News, most people wouldn't call that a "point of information".. If one links any obviously biased news site, then it is perceived more of an endorsement than just putting a 'fact' out there.
- dpweb 6y agoAssange stating it didn't come from Russia is meaningless. He has no way of knowing if where he got them from was hired by Russia.
- rightbyte 6y agoYe that is correct. So Russia, aswell as any of every other organization, state or individual on the planet, might indirectly have handed the info over.
- Kaveren 6y agoif only there were some investigations into the source of the hack. i guess we'll never know
- lazyjones 6y agoThat's wrong and misleading. He might, for instance, have scooped them right off of Hillary's server.
- dencodev 6y agoOr he might have gotten them directly from someone working at the DNC
- Hinrik 6y ago> Edit: oh wow, to -2 in less than 2 minutes. > It's a point of information, not an endorsement. Please follow the guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), specifically: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. "
- mhh__ 6y agoI sometimes wonder whether a better solution would be to require a comment with a downvote i.e. there was a heated thread about Assange yesterday, in which my karma was oscillating from -25 to +5 around the amount prior to making the comments, but only one proper counterargument.
- tootie 6y agoBoth Muller report as well as the House and Senate investigations all concluded that Russia was the source. Assange's denials are about as credible as Roger Stone's denials.
- imphatic 6y agoThis is what blows my mind. For a group of people who supposedly rely on institutional knowledge about topics like science and tech, suddenly on this topic its one guys claim against literally dozens of institutions counter claims.
- HumblyTossed 6y agoFor anything non-tech related, tech people are just like everyone else. Our supposed higher IQ's don't mean much when forming opinions.
- ardy42 6y ago> For anything non-tech related, tech people are just like everyone else. Our supposed higher IQ's don't mean much when forming opinions. Honestly, I think "our supposed higher IQ's" (or more precisely: a self-image as being much smarter than average) can actually be a handicap when dealing with areas outside of one's specialty. It can very easily lead to overconfidence.
- Balgair 6y agoThere is a phenomenon with Physicists in their emeritus years. They go into other fields, declare that the field is just so easy, try to model things as 1m radius spheres of water, see that the four interstitial cell layers of the bovine second stomach are hyper-complex and noisy when saline levels change 2% (or things to that effect), declare that the field still needs to change, write a paper up that is simplistic and help no one in the field, get a bit of press coverage, assuage their damaged egos, and then try out landscape painting or Ethiopian cooking. This phenomenon of overconfident and un-humble emeritus Physicists is not restricted to just them, I'm afraid, but all people. Humility is a virtue.
- dguaraglia 6y agoAssange also made a big show of trying to claim it was Seth Rich without actually claiming it was Seth Rich. I'm not sure I trust Assange's claims on this one, chief.
- sneak 6y agoOne thing I've come to learn about humans, and while I'm tempted to say seems like an artifact of modern times, I know is something that's been with us for as long as we've been human beings: Narratives matter to most people far, far, far more than facts.
- brodouevencode 6y ago> It's a point of information, not an endorsement. This is the world we live in now. And tbh, this is the problem.
- mhh__ 6y agoThat is very true, but consider that we are speaking via the medium of text and text alone. You should make it clear whether you are citing something to support your claim and merely say the claim exists, because there is no tone of voice to convey.
- hellofunk 6y agoIt’s not a point of information, though. It is one man’s claim from a very biased site on this topic. That’s why you are getting downvoted.
- duxup 6y agoHow confidant can we be that: 1. Assange really will choose to say who is or isn't a source (that carries its own risks in so many directions...). 2. Assange actually wants to tell the truth about the source... 3. Assange actually KNOWS the nature of the source? If Bob comes to him and says he's from Brazil (random country selected) and he got the info from Australia (another rando country) ... how sure can Assange be? I'm not sure I find Assange to be a reliable narrator. The nature of wikileaks has for a while felt like it wants to craft its own narrative rather than just release information. Even as far back as when they were on Facebook (not sure if they still are) any question that seemed to even be distantly critical was deleted. They'd announce a big upcoming leak and nothing would happen ... if you asked anything about it your post was deleted. I felt like they were playing their own game(s). But even if that isn't the case, I don't trust that Assange can be as sure as he sounds about where information comes from. If he just up and trusts what his source tells him or just assumes he has the resources to be sure, that's kinda naive...
- jonhohle 6y agoMy impression is that Assange has become the bad guy because he potentially torpedoed the presidential aspirations of HRC. Prior to that publication, unless you were the target of a leak, what Wikileaks was doing was in the obvious benefit of the people. As the bad guy, it becomes much easier to infer malicious motives. That said, Wikileaks was very proud of its "reporting" track record, methods, and sources. Their minimal exposition was journalistic cover for their original sources that was typically so thin that it would be difficult to contain errors. Based on that track record and lengths Assange has gone through to maintain that integrity, I tend to believe who he says his source wasn't, that he would not intentionally reveal a source - living or dead, and that their are likely intermediaries or collaborators that would be compromised even if the original source would no longer be affected. That chain of trust is how they help ensure other leakers come to them first, and it seems their opsec is good enough to keep those sources secret even when the organization is significantly compromised. I completely agree that they often oversold their releases. There were often claims of a deadman switch as well. If that hasn't triggered after all that's happened, was it a bluff? did it fail? was it compromised? did it contain information about the wrong target?
- wicker82 6y agoIf Assange was a Russian asset who helped Trump win the election, then when Trump offered him a pardon to announce someone non-Russian as the source, he would accept the offer immediately. Assange's options in that case would be: rot miserably in jail, risk dying, hurt mother Russia and Trump - or - say a couple of words, save himself, Russia and increase Trumps re-election chances, and go back out into the world doing more amazing conspiracy-spy-stuff for Russia with a big fat paycheck. Conclusion: Assange is not a Russian asset.