3 ms·
> 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 irres
by 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 agoSource 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 agoIf 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.