5 ms·

Wikileaks posted diplomatic cables without redacting the names or other forms of PII. Actual journalists from the New York Times, Der Speigel, Le Monde, The Gua

Wikileaks posted diplomatic cables without redacting the names or other forms of PII. Actual journalists from the New York Times, Der Speigel, Le Monde, The Guardian, and El País all signed a statement saying this was a gross breach of people’s privacy and potentially put these people in danger. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/leader-wikileaks-unredacted-release https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/leader... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cab...

jude- 5y ago
This is the reason why I don't feel too bad for Julian Assange, and why I don't refer to him as a "journalist." Not redacting PII is such a rookie mistake that I can't see it as anything other than journalistic malpractice.
- iNane9000 5y ago
  Well you can’t claim he is not a journalist and also accuse him of journalistic malpractice. It’s one or the other.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  You don't feel bad for him because you have misunderstood what actually happened? Wikileaks had an encrypted file but it was a Guardian journalist that published the key to decrypt it. What you are suggesting is that Wikileaks should censor the source files before journalists got them. That is not how proof works. Redacted files isn't proof but tampered evidence. The fault is 100% on the person that leaked the decryption key. Blaming Julian Assange for this leak is jumping to conclusions.
  - jude- 5y ago
    Saint Julian reused the same password on multiple different files. Ask yourself why he might commit such a slipshod error. > Wikileaks should censor the source files before journalists got them. WikiLeaks, like anyone, should take prudent steps to avoid doxxing people. If you can't understand why doxxing people is bad, then I have nothing to say to you.
    - Dah00n 5y ago
      This has nothing to do with doxxing. You cannot discuss something by using the wrong words to try to force a (false) point. Besides, I don't like Julian assange so the whole Saint thing you got going only make you look childish.
stefan_ 5y ago
You mean after an "actual journalist" put the password for the cache of all unredacted cables that "actual journalists" received in his book?
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  To this day, The Guardian refuses to admit that it released the unredacted cables to the public, and blames WikiLeaks for the release. One of The Guardian's own journalists used the decryption key as a chapter title in his book about WikiLeaks. The Guardian's excuse is that they thought the decryption key was temporary. I don't know if people at The Guardian really are that misinformed about how encryption works, or if they're just being deceitful.
  - C19is20 5y ago
    sauce?
  - anonymousiam 5y ago
    Given the publicity around the "poison pill" "insurance" archive, it's difficult to believe that anybody could not understand the severity of leaking that password. Although not required or authorized to do so, Wikileaks tried to limit the exposure of sources who would be at risk if their identities were exposed. The unredacted information exposed many sources and put lives at risk. The USG blames Wikileaks for this because they released the encrypted archive. I have never heard of an investigation or prosecution into the circumstances of the password release, but if Wikileaks is responsible, then David Leigh should be as well. https://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html https://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html
  - jude- 5y ago
    That's because Julian Assange reused the same password on multiple files. At best, it's terrible opsec on his part. At worst, it was deliberate on his part, so he could plausibly claim no responsibility for the fallout. Either way, unless you can prove malicious intent on The Guardian, they have nothing to admit and Julian has some explaining to do.
macinjosh 5y ago
Lol @ “actual journalists” You do know there is no such thing as journalistic licensing or certification, right? They went to college. They have nothing above anyone else who break news because they are employed by a corporate outlet. That makes me trust them less actually.
bitL 5y ago
Panama papers were released with names by the same newspapers.
Dah00n 5y ago
You quote The Guardian, who published the decryption key? That's an interesting choice of source.

jude- 5y ago

This is the reason why I don't feel too bad for Julian Assange, and why I don't refer to him as a "journalist." Not redacting PII is such a rookie mistake that I can't see it as anything other than journalistic malpractice.

iNane9000 5y ago
Well you can’t claim he is not a journalist and also accuse him of journalistic malpractice. It’s one or the other.
Dah00n 5y ago
You don't feel bad for him because you have misunderstood what actually happened? Wikileaks had an encrypted file but it was a Guardian journalist that published the key to decrypt it. What you are suggesting is that Wikileaks should censor the source files before journalists got them. That is not how proof works. Redacted files isn't proof but tampered evidence. The fault is 100% on the person that leaked the decryption key. Blaming Julian Assange for this leak is jumping to conclusions.
- jude- 5y ago
  Saint Julian reused the same password on multiple different files. Ask yourself why he might commit such a slipshod error. > Wikileaks should censor the source files before journalists got them. WikiLeaks, like anyone, should take prudent steps to avoid doxxing people. If you can't understand why doxxing people is bad, then I have nothing to say to you.
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    This has nothing to do with doxxing. You cannot discuss something by using the wrong words to try to force a (false) point. Besides, I don't like Julian assange so the whole Saint thing you got going only make you look childish.

stefan_ 5y ago

You mean after an "actual journalist" put the password for the cache of all unredacted cables that "actual journalists" received in his book?

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
To this day, The Guardian refuses to admit that it released the unredacted cables to the public, and blames WikiLeaks for the release. One of The Guardian's own journalists used the decryption key as a chapter title in his book about WikiLeaks. The Guardian's excuse is that they thought the decryption key was temporary. I don't know if people at The Guardian really are that misinformed about how encryption works, or if they're just being deceitful.
- C19is20 5y ago
  sauce?
- anonymousiam 5y ago
  Given the publicity around the "poison pill" "insurance" archive, it's difficult to believe that anybody could not understand the severity of leaking that password. Although not required or authorized to do so, Wikileaks tried to limit the exposure of sources who would be at risk if their identities were exposed. The unredacted information exposed many sources and put lives at risk. The USG blames Wikileaks for this because they released the encrypted archive. I have never heard of an investigation or prosecution into the circumstances of the password release, but if Wikileaks is responsible, then David Leigh should be as well. https://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html https://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html
- jude- 5y ago
  That's because Julian Assange reused the same password on multiple files. At best, it's terrible opsec on his part. At worst, it was deliberate on his part, so he could plausibly claim no responsibility for the fallout. Either way, unless you can prove malicious intent on The Guardian, they have nothing to admit and Julian has some explaining to do.

macinjosh 5y ago

Lol @ “actual journalists” You do know there is no such thing as journalistic licensing or certification, right? They went to college. They have nothing above anyone else who break news because they are employed by a corporate outlet. That makes me trust them less actually.

bitL 5y ago

Panama papers were released with names by the same newspapers.

Dah00n 5y ago

You quote The Guardian, who published the decryption key? That's an interesting choice of source.