4 ms·

> claim it's all fake. Did that happen? I am not from the US, so I don't know, but here in Europe it always seemed clear that all leaks by WikiLeaks were genui

by patall 5y ago

> claim it's all fake. Did that happen? I am not from the US, so I don't know, but here in Europe it always seemed clear that all leaks by WikiLeaks were genuine. People were discussing whether it's good to leak such stuff but the authenticity was not in doubt.

mhoad 5y ago
I think the OP was kind of caricaturing what are some valid criticisms of Wikileaks. The four main ones I think have been they were accused of selectively releasing things in a way that looked awfully political. They just so happened to line up with a bunch of political statements Julian Assange had made in private chats that were later leaked. The second one was that the way in which they went about providing active support in getting some of their documents from sources went way beyond all previously recognised standards of journalism. Third one of the things that did ultimately come out of the DNC leak they were a part of was that some of the documents were altered from the originals and so they were “mostly real” but did have fake things in them. The reason for that was that it was an intelligence operation by the Russians that was specifically designed to throw the election at the last minute. Understandably people were a bit upset by this and began to ask a lot of questions focusing on at what point were Wikileaks aware that this was an intelligence operation and I don’t think there are good answers for that still to this day. The fourth main one is that they have been historically irresponsible with how they have released information and it likely got innocent people killed or put in jail. So overall I think there’s a bit of a question of do they act differently behind closed doors that isn’t consistent with their public image because there is at least some evidence of that now.
- Semaphor 5y ago
  > was that some of the documents were altered from the originals and so they were “mostly real” but did have fake things in them. Source? > historically irresponsible with how they have released information and it likely got innocent people killed or put in jail. Wasn’t that the media essentially leaking the keys?
  - mhoad 5y ago
    Source for the first point is here around 37-38 mins in https://youtu.be/NKD1-xH9_Fk https://youtu.be/NKD1-xH9_Fk I just want to make it clear that the source itself isn’t a YouTube video here but that this video happens to have an incredibly well respected person from the industry addressing that particular topic that might help provide context. For the second point it went a bit beyond that. There are a lot of examples but here’s a couple https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikileaks-private-medical-data-email-leaks https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikileaks-private-medical-da...
    - Semaphor 5y ago
      If the video is not the actual source, why not link the actual source? I certainly have a bigger hate of videos than normal, as any kind of research into them requires far more work than proper text, so I’d be happy to get anything that can be more easily verified. For the second point, according to the article it was pretty minor stuff where what The Guardian did was far worse.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > the media essentially leaking the keys "Essentially" seems to suggest that the media didn't literally publish the key. So let's be literal: Luke Harding, who is employed by The Guardian, published (not "leaked") the key, in a book published by - The Guardian.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  On the first, it's not really strange to think people with documents to leak would look for an outlet that shares their political opinions. The "selective" leaks accusations are largely unfounded, with the one example given having been refused as much of the data had already been leaked. On the second,you're referring to the supposed hacking claim in the indictment. Even if the accusations are true, the "hacking" provided no additional documents. You can take issue with Assange's action there, but all the documents were acquired by regular journalism standards. I'd also like a source on the third one. Not someone discussing it, evidence of doctored documents. And the fourth is just untrue. While Wikileaks was going through the documents, the Guardian published the decryption key in a book. Your claim that their later releases included too much personal info is true, but that didn't kill people and it happened when Assange was trapped in the embassy unable to create the kind of vetting team.
- roenxi 5y ago
  > Third one of the things that did ultimately come out of the DNC leak they were a part of was that some of the documents were altered from the originals and so they were “mostly real” but did have fake things in them. The reason for that was that it was an intelligence operation by the Russians that was specifically designed to throw the election at the last minute. This isn't a valid criticism of Wikileaks. If the Russians were responsible - and there was so much later-discredited bullshit kicked up about hypothetical Russians in 2016 I'm not taking that at face value - but if they were they could just have posted up a big torrent somewhere to the same overall effect. Wikileaks isn't an important cog in that plan.
- naasking 5y ago
  > The four main ones I think have been they were accused of selectively releasing things in a way that looked awfully political. Others have addressed the other points, I just want to note the hypocrisy of the journalists making these claims, as if media outlets would never present facts in a partisan way or exhibit any kind of political bias. It's laughable on its face.
- etc-hosts 5y ago
  Need a source for some of the DNC leak stuff was forged
- tyrfing 5y ago
  > Third one of the things that did ultimately come out of the DNC leak they were a part of was that some of the documents were altered from the originals and so they were “mostly real” but did have fake things in them. The reason for that was that it was an intelligence operation by the Russians that was specifically designed to throw the election at the last minute. Looking around, it seems screenshots of one document were marked 'confidential', the original documents without that were available, and media turned that into "Russia edited the documents". Is there any other evidence? I can't find it.
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    There isn't

by patall 5y ago

mhoad 5y ago

I think the OP was kind of caricaturing what are some valid criticisms of Wikileaks. The four main ones I think have been they were accused of selectively releasing things in a way that looked awfully political. They just so happened to line up with a bunch of political statements Julian Assange had made in private chats that were later leaked. The second one was that the way in which they went about providing active support in getting some of their documents from sources went way beyond all previously recognised standards of journalism. Third one of the things that did ultimately come out of the DNC leak they were a part of was that some of the documents were altered from the originals and so they were “mostly real” but did have fake things in them. The reason for that was that it was an intelligence operation by the Russians that was specifically designed to throw the election at the last minute. Understandably people were a bit upset by this and began to ask a lot of questions focusing on at what point were Wikileaks aware that this was an intelligence operation and I don’t think there are good answers for that still to this day. The fourth main one is that they have been historically irresponsible with how they have released information and it likely got innocent people killed or put in jail. So overall I think there’s a bit of a question of do they act differently behind closed doors that isn’t consistent with their public image because there is at least some evidence of that now.

Semaphor 5y ago
> was that some of the documents were altered from the originals and so they were “mostly real” but did have fake things in them. Source? > historically irresponsible with how they have released information and it likely got innocent people killed or put in jail. Wasn’t that the media essentially leaking the keys?
- mhoad 5y ago
  Source for the first point is here around 37-38 mins in https://youtu.be/NKD1-xH9_Fk https://youtu.be/NKD1-xH9_Fk I just want to make it clear that the source itself isn’t a YouTube video here but that this video happens to have an incredibly well respected person from the industry addressing that particular topic that might help provide context. For the second point it went a bit beyond that. There are a lot of examples but here’s a couple https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikileaks-private-medical-data-email-leaks https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikileaks-private-medical-da...
  - Semaphor 5y ago
    If the video is not the actual source, why not link the actual source? I certainly have a bigger hate of videos than normal, as any kind of research into them requires far more work than proper text, so I’d be happy to get anything that can be more easily verified. For the second point, according to the article it was pretty minor stuff where what The Guardian did was far worse.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > the media essentially leaking the keys "Essentially" seems to suggest that the media didn't literally publish the key. So let's be literal: Luke Harding, who is employed by The Guardian, published (not "leaked") the key, in a book published by - The Guardian.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
On the first, it's not really strange to think people with documents to leak would look for an outlet that shares their political opinions. The "selective" leaks accusations are largely unfounded, with the one example given having been refused as much of the data had already been leaked. On the second,you're referring to the supposed hacking claim in the indictment. Even if the accusations are true, the "hacking" provided no additional documents. You can take issue with Assange's action there, but all the documents were acquired by regular journalism standards. I'd also like a source on the third one. Not someone discussing it, evidence of doctored documents. And the fourth is just untrue. While Wikileaks was going through the documents, the Guardian published the decryption key in a book. Your claim that their later releases included too much personal info is true, but that didn't kill people and it happened when Assange was trapped in the embassy unable to create the kind of vetting team.
roenxi 5y ago
> Third one of the things that did ultimately come out of the DNC leak they were a part of was that some of the documents were altered from the originals and so they were “mostly real” but did have fake things in them. The reason for that was that it was an intelligence operation by the Russians that was specifically designed to throw the election at the last minute. This isn't a valid criticism of Wikileaks. If the Russians were responsible - and there was so much later-discredited bullshit kicked up about hypothetical Russians in 2016 I'm not taking that at face value - but if they were they could just have posted up a big torrent somewhere to the same overall effect. Wikileaks isn't an important cog in that plan.
naasking 5y ago
> The four main ones I think have been they were accused of selectively releasing things in a way that looked awfully political. Others have addressed the other points, I just want to note the hypocrisy of the journalists making these claims, as if media outlets would never present facts in a partisan way or exhibit any kind of political bias. It's laughable on its face.
etc-hosts 5y ago
Need a source for some of the DNC leak stuff was forged
tyrfing 5y ago
> Third one of the things that did ultimately come out of the DNC leak they were a part of was that some of the documents were altered from the originals and so they were “mostly real” but did have fake things in them. The reason for that was that it was an intelligence operation by the Russians that was specifically designed to throw the election at the last minute. Looking around, it seems screenshots of one document were marked 'confidential', the original documents without that were available, and media turned that into "Russia edited the documents". Is there any other evidence? I can't find it.
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  There isn't