23 ms·

He makes an important point early on in outlining the mission of Wikileaks centering on making Data and Information freely accessible to all (the concept of Dat

He makes an important point early on in outlining the mission of Wikileaks centering on making Data and Information freely accessible to all (the concept of Dataism, for those who have read Yuval Harrari’s HOMO DEUS). However, the processing of Information into Intelligence that can be acted upon is what characterizes Intelligence agencies. Wikileaks does not concern itself with this phase. Yet, the CIA’s Pompeo is trying to paint a narrative that Wikileaks is doing this by labeling them a “non-state intelligence agency”, thereby justifying the CIA’s actions to attack Wikileaks. In brief: Narrative #1 - the CIA attacking an “Idealistic Free Information Publisher”. Narrative #2 - the CIA attacking a “Non-state Dark Intelligence Agency” The CIA is actively trying to create Narrative #2, which is a bit concerning.

cochne 6y ago
I think the true narrative is probably somewhere in the middle of those. Did WikiLeaks not strategically publish information for their desired political outcome?
- whatshisface 6y ago
  People keep saying this, but never include the story. What's the meat behind the claim that they did this?
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    The New York Times did reporting on the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Clinton emails that suggested the timing indicated political motivation. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed...
    - medicineman 6y ago
      Her entire career has been politics. Releasing any information on her at any time can be suggestive of political motivation.
    - bitcharmer 6y ago
      The problem I have with this accusation is that it works either way. Had they published after the elections they would have been called a secret Clinton ally. There is always some group to gain/loose politically from exposing documents like that regardless of the timing.
      - scoot_718 6y ago
        They literally tweeted that their goal was to fuck her over.
        bitcharmer 6y ago
        This statement could definitely use a source
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        "Literally" is carrying too much weight there. They made extremely clear, however, that they thought a Clinton victory in 2016 would be dangerous for the world, while a Trump victory would reign in the worst tendencies of liberal leadership. https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks...
    - jjk166 6y ago
      I honestly don't get why people act like there is or ought to be some gentleman's agreement that no bad press should come out about a candidate shortly before an election. The final lead up to the election has traditionally been the time of most intense scrutiny, and if someone has dirty laundry, it really should be aired before they've been elected to a position of power.
      - h0h0h0h0111 6y ago
        Indeed - surely the best time to have a full picture of a candidate is right before they go to the polls?! Also not to be a whataboutist (I didn't have a horse in the race), but plenty of other dirt was released on other candidates in the run-up to the election, and I didn't see the Clinton campaign condemning the timing of its release...
      - seppin 6y ago
        > no bad press Not bad press. The stolen materials of a state-sponsored attack released at the precise time it would do the most damage. And people are claiming with a straight face this was a coincidence and Wikileaks wasn't working with Russian intelligence, against the American democratic party.
      - roenxi 6y ago
        I think the gentlemen's agreement would be to give a fair amount of time to rebuff. If someone says something that isn't true it takes time to respond because (1) the responder doesn't know what was claimed since it is a fabrication and (2) responder can't necessarily grasp the damage or interpretation of the claim until some polling data comes in. Smears unleashed in the last week of the campaign are a bit below the belt. Doubt that is ever going to stop anyone though.
    - disown 6y ago
      The same New York Times that endorsed hillary? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-cl... I'd take anything the New York Times's "reports" on political/etc with a grain of salt. Also, I'm of the opinion that all news/media organizations are propaganda organizations. But so what? Let these propagandists fight to expose each other rather than colluding together to mislead the public by serving the same state.
  - scoot_718 6y ago
    They were very open about their desired outcomes alongside their releases. They had the express goal of affecting the election, as expressed by their site and their twitter.
    - ric2b 6y ago
      Got any links to those tweets?
thatfunkymunki 6y ago
Doesn't their editorial control over what they publish/don't publish push them further into intelligence agency territory?
- whatshisface 6y ago
  Only insofar as the Guardian's editorial control over the whistleblowing they publish pushes them into intelligence agency territory.
  - seppin 6y ago
    If the Guardian were caught laundering Russian-hacked materials to attack an American election, then yes. Otherwise, no.
whatshisface 6y ago
>However, the processing of Information into Intelligence that can be acted upon is what characterizes Intelligence agencies. Wikileaks does not concern itself with this phase. Yet, the CIA’s Pompeo is trying to paint a narrative that Wikileaks is doing this by labeling them a “non-state intelligence agency”, thereby justifying the CIA’s actions to attack Wikileaks. Wait, think tanks, all political pundits, every newspaper with an opinion column, and everyone reading Hacker News processes information into intelligence. Who can't be targeted under this definition of a non-state intelligence agency?
- Shared404 6y ago
  "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." -Lavrentiy Beria That quote was from the soviet side of the Cold War, but both sides did and still follow it's spirit.
woodruffw 6y ago
I'm normally loathe to defend any aspect of the US MIC, but I think Pompeo's point is that Wikileaks knowingly publicizes information that has already been processed into Intelligence, and willfully turns a blind eye to its role as a laundromat for hostile powers under the guise of an ideology of totally free data. I, for one, think that all information should be free. I think Pompeo's motivations are suspect and geopolitical and I don't trust him personally. However, I also think that Wikileaks has a myopic view of information freedom that chiefly benefits powers whose long term vision is the decline of liberal democracy.
- tremon 6y ago
  chiefly benefits powers whose long term vision is the decline of liberal democracy. ...by exposing the hypocrisy of said liberal democracies. What good is a liberal democracy when the demos remains oblivious of the negative aspects what the cracy is doing? If things like the collateral murder videos, or the treatment of Manning and Snowden are the work of said "liberal democracies", then I'm fully in the camp that wants to decline them, and replace them with better, more transparent, more accountable structures.
  - woodruffw 6y ago
    No arguments here. The US is a nation of profound and disgusting hypocrisies. But see my sibling comment.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    "Hurr durr America bad" is the standard trope on Reddit. Most people on HN are pretty well informed of the less than nice things the .gov has done over they years even if they bury their heads in the sand when advocating for expansion of government scope on <insert personal favorite issue here>. And the right has their own laundry list of reasons the government is not to be trusted. Those people have nearly zero trust for pretty much any gun-toting federal agency. I wouldn't say that people are "oblivious". I'd say that people are divided on how to fix the issues.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
seppin 6y ago
The CIA recognizes Wikileaks as an arm of Kremlin information warfare. Western leftists are all too willing to help Wikileaks deflect from that obvious classification. (julian assange had a TV show on RT, what more do you need?)
- stunt 6y ago
  > Recognizing Wikileaks as an arm of Kremlin information warfare Isn't that the same strategy that countries like Iran, Russia, and China have against their whistleblowers? And isn't that the exact behavior that we always blame and condemn? We have human rights sanctions against Iran for punishing journalists.
  - seppin 6y ago
    > Isn't that the same strategy that countries like Iran, Russia, and China have against their whistleblowers? We can't have a discussion if basic we can't get basic things right. Snowden isn't a whistleblower. He leaked stolen materials then fled to a hostile country. Multiple IC whistleblowers were allowed to testify against the President in the last 4 years, all without punitive punishment (although the Trump's tried). Snowden could have chosen a different path. His impressive control of his own narrative seems to have most of this community fooled.
- roenxi 6y ago
  One of Wikileak's overt and major goals is to expose CIA secrets. The two are in direct opposition. The CIA are known to be professional bad-faith liers (eg, [0]). It is quite possible they are lieing for political purposes. Their opinion on Wikileaks is not remotely authoritative. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIA_controversies#Covert_programs_hidden_from_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIA_controversies#Cove...
  - seppin 6y ago
    > One of Wikileak's overt and major goals is to expose CIA secrets. The two are in direct opposition. Yes, which makes them an opposition intelligence organization. Like I said.
Pokepokalypse 6y ago
Wikileaks stated mission was to "make secrecy expensive" (ie. so unweildy with rules and procedures to ensure secrecy, that even those with very deep pockets could not maintain it) - it was meant to democratize information - all information. Whether it was dangerous or not.
jariel 6y ago
It's not the 'processing of information' that is their concern, it's the 'collection of it'. Also, there is the distinct possibility that it could be compromised by agencies of other states. I don't think either of those narratives are quite on the mark. Maybe we'll eventually find out.
disown 6y ago
> The CIA is actively trying to create Narrative #2, which is a bit concerning. Not just Pompeo and the CIA, the mainstream news industry.
scoot_718 6y ago
Pretty sure Wikileaks has been a front for the FSB for a while now. All the ideological people were pushed out a long time ago. They're not the release everything group that everyone wanted them to be.
einpoklum 6y ago
If I start a blog in which I take information about international affairs, and synthesize it into reports, analyses and appraisals - I am now a "Non-state intelligence agency", albeit a very small one. So going after #2 sounds even more silly than going after #1. As for the epithet "Dark", that's just empty rhetorical embellishment.

cochne 6y ago

I think the true narrative is probably somewhere in the middle of those. Did WikiLeaks not strategically publish information for their desired political outcome?

whatshisface 6y ago
People keep saying this, but never include the story. What's the meat behind the claim that they did this?
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  The New York Times did reporting on the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Clinton emails that suggested the timing indicated political motivation. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed...
  - medicineman 6y ago
    Her entire career has been politics. Releasing any information on her at any time can be suggestive of political motivation.
  - bitcharmer 6y ago
    The problem I have with this accusation is that it works either way. Had they published after the elections they would have been called a secret Clinton ally. There is always some group to gain/loose politically from exposing documents like that regardless of the timing.
    - scoot_718 6y ago
      They literally tweeted that their goal was to fuck her over.
      - bitcharmer 6y ago
        This statement could definitely use a source
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        "Literally" is carrying too much weight there. They made extremely clear, however, that they thought a Clinton victory in 2016 would be dangerous for the world, while a Trump victory would reign in the worst tendencies of liberal leadership. https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks...
  - jjk166 6y ago
    I honestly don't get why people act like there is or ought to be some gentleman's agreement that no bad press should come out about a candidate shortly before an election. The final lead up to the election has traditionally been the time of most intense scrutiny, and if someone has dirty laundry, it really should be aired before they've been elected to a position of power.
    - h0h0h0h0111 6y ago
      Indeed - surely the best time to have a full picture of a candidate is right before they go to the polls?! Also not to be a whataboutist (I didn't have a horse in the race), but plenty of other dirt was released on other candidates in the run-up to the election, and I didn't see the Clinton campaign condemning the timing of its release...
    - seppin 6y ago
      > no bad press Not bad press. The stolen materials of a state-sponsored attack released at the precise time it would do the most damage. And people are claiming with a straight face this was a coincidence and Wikileaks wasn't working with Russian intelligence, against the American democratic party.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      I think the gentlemen's agreement would be to give a fair amount of time to rebuff. If someone says something that isn't true it takes time to respond because (1) the responder doesn't know what was claimed since it is a fabrication and (2) responder can't necessarily grasp the damage or interpretation of the claim until some polling data comes in. Smears unleashed in the last week of the campaign are a bit below the belt. Doubt that is ever going to stop anyone though.
  - disown 6y ago
    The same New York Times that endorsed hillary? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-cl... I'd take anything the New York Times's "reports" on political/etc with a grain of salt. Also, I'm of the opinion that all news/media organizations are propaganda organizations. But so what? Let these propagandists fight to expose each other rather than colluding together to mislead the public by serving the same state.
- scoot_718 6y ago
  They were very open about their desired outcomes alongside their releases. They had the express goal of affecting the election, as expressed by their site and their twitter.
  - ric2b 6y ago
    Got any links to those tweets?

thatfunkymunki 6y ago

Doesn't their editorial control over what they publish/don't publish push them further into intelligence agency territory?

whatshisface 6y ago
Only insofar as the Guardian's editorial control over the whistleblowing they publish pushes them into intelligence agency territory.
- seppin 6y ago
  If the Guardian were caught laundering Russian-hacked materials to attack an American election, then yes. Otherwise, no.

whatshisface 6y ago

>However, the processing of Information into Intelligence that can be acted upon is what characterizes Intelligence agencies. Wikileaks does not concern itself with this phase. Yet, the CIA’s Pompeo is trying to paint a narrative that Wikileaks is doing this by labeling them a “non-state intelligence agency”, thereby justifying the CIA’s actions to attack Wikileaks. Wait, think tanks, all political pundits, every newspaper with an opinion column, and everyone reading Hacker News processes information into intelligence. Who can't be targeted under this definition of a non-state intelligence agency?

Shared404 6y ago
"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." -Lavrentiy Beria That quote was from the soviet side of the Cold War, but both sides did and still follow it's spirit.

woodruffw 6y ago

I'm normally loathe to defend any aspect of the US MIC, but I think Pompeo's point is that Wikileaks knowingly publicizes information that has already been processed into Intelligence, and willfully turns a blind eye to its role as a laundromat for hostile powers under the guise of an ideology of totally free data. I, for one, think that all information should be free. I think Pompeo's motivations are suspect and geopolitical and I don't trust him personally. However, I also think that Wikileaks has a myopic view of information freedom that chiefly benefits powers whose long term vision is the decline of liberal democracy.

tremon 6y ago
chiefly benefits powers whose long term vision is the decline of liberal democracy. ...by exposing the hypocrisy of said liberal democracies. What good is a liberal democracy when the demos remains oblivious of the negative aspects what the cracy is doing? If things like the collateral murder videos, or the treatment of Manning and Snowden are the work of said "liberal democracies", then I'm fully in the camp that wants to decline them, and replace them with better, more transparent, more accountable structures.
- woodruffw 6y ago
  No arguments here. The US is a nation of profound and disgusting hypocrisies. But see my sibling comment.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  "Hurr durr America bad" is the standard trope on Reddit. Most people on HN are pretty well informed of the less than nice things the .gov has done over they years even if they bury their heads in the sand when advocating for expansion of government scope on <insert personal favorite issue here>. And the right has their own laundry list of reasons the government is not to be trusted. Those people have nearly zero trust for pretty much any gun-toting federal agency. I wouldn't say that people are "oblivious". I'd say that people are divided on how to fix the issues.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago

seppin 6y ago

The CIA recognizes Wikileaks as an arm of Kremlin information warfare. Western leftists are all too willing to help Wikileaks deflect from that obvious classification. (julian assange had a TV show on RT, what more do you need?)

stunt 6y ago
> Recognizing Wikileaks as an arm of Kremlin information warfare Isn't that the same strategy that countries like Iran, Russia, and China have against their whistleblowers? And isn't that the exact behavior that we always blame and condemn? We have human rights sanctions against Iran for punishing journalists.
- seppin 6y ago
  > Isn't that the same strategy that countries like Iran, Russia, and China have against their whistleblowers? We can't have a discussion if basic we can't get basic things right. Snowden isn't a whistleblower. He leaked stolen materials then fled to a hostile country. Multiple IC whistleblowers were allowed to testify against the President in the last 4 years, all without punitive punishment (although the Trump's tried). Snowden could have chosen a different path. His impressive control of his own narrative seems to have most of this community fooled.
roenxi 6y ago
One of Wikileak's overt and major goals is to expose CIA secrets. The two are in direct opposition. The CIA are known to be professional bad-faith liers (eg, [0]). It is quite possible they are lieing for political purposes. Their opinion on Wikileaks is not remotely authoritative. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIA_controversies#Covert_programs_hidden_from_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIA_controversies#Cove...
- seppin 6y ago
  > One of Wikileak's overt and major goals is to expose CIA secrets. The two are in direct opposition. Yes, which makes them an opposition intelligence organization. Like I said.

Pokepokalypse 6y ago

Wikileaks stated mission was to "make secrecy expensive" (ie. so unweildy with rules and procedures to ensure secrecy, that even those with very deep pockets could not maintain it) - it was meant to democratize information - all information. Whether it was dangerous or not.

jariel 6y ago

It's not the 'processing of information' that is their concern, it's the 'collection of it'. Also, there is the distinct possibility that it could be compromised by agencies of other states. I don't think either of those narratives are quite on the mark. Maybe we'll eventually find out.

disown 6y ago

> The CIA is actively trying to create Narrative #2, which is a bit concerning. Not just Pompeo and the CIA, the mainstream news industry.

scoot_718 6y ago

Pretty sure Wikileaks has been a front for the FSB for a while now. All the ideological people were pushed out a long time ago. They're not the release everything group that everyone wanted them to be.

einpoklum 6y ago

If I start a blog in which I take information about international affairs, and synthesize it into reports, analyses and appraisals - I am now a "Non-state intelligence agency", albeit a very small one. So going after #2 sounds even more silly than going after #1. As for the epithet "Dark", that's just empty rhetorical embellishment.