6 ms·

I think this is nonsense? As far as I know there is zero evidence that wikileaks did not publish everything newsworthy that they were given regardless of who i

by harry8 2y ago

I think this is nonsense? As far as I know there is zero evidence that wikileaks did not publish everything newsworthy that they were given regardless of who it helped or hindered. Anyone have anything credible showing they suppressed anything ever?

whoitwas 2y ago
Wikileaks canary died a long, long time ago. Nothing from them has been trustworthy for a long time.
- harry8 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - whoitwas 2y ago
    What? It's true. Wikileaks had a canary to let everyone know if they were compromised. The canary died and so they can't be seen as reliable.
    - harry8 2y ago
      Again. What canary? Where is the source?
  - throwup238 2y ago
    Your comment has no substance and is against house rules: > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. > Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did. Leave the moderating to dang, it's his job and he gets paid for it. If you have nothing to say, don't reply at all.
    - whoitwas 2y ago
      I would have to dig up a decade old computer or scour the web for years. THis is nonsense. It's 100% true that Wikileaks has a cryptographic canary that expired sometime after Julian Assange was incarcerated.
      - harry8 2y ago
        Forgive me, I've never heard of a "cryptographic canary." Google tuned up nothing for me about what it is or how it relates to wikileaks. It gave me the strong impression of being nonsense. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Have you got a link for what it is? My prior is that any evidence of substance that contributed to a belief in wikileaks being untrustworthy would be /very/ easy to find in many locations. Maybe it's not but I can't think why. Perhaps you know?
        whoitwas 2y ago
        Wikileaks information was trustworthy and accurate. It may still be that the information prior to their canary expiring is okay, but anything released after can't be trusted. I'd assume that once the canary died whichever actors compromised them scrubbed it. It's been over a decade now, but I do have a machine somewhere with evidence. Some nerd bigger than me here certainly has evidence available in a dropbox or somewhere accessible. I don't.
        harry8 2y ago
        What is the canary? Source?
        vikingerik 2y ago
        A canary goes something like "This website has not received or acted on any government orders to disclose or modify or remove material." When they ever do, then they remove that notice. The government enforcement usually includes a gag order prohibiting the target from saying that they're under orders, so the intent is that you can infer government gag pressure by the canary having been removed. Wikileaks used to have such a notice and no longer does, so we assume government enforcement is why. I'm not sure what the cryptographic part has to do with anything. I'd guess it was signed in a way that you can verify the government itself didn't tamper with the notice.
- GolfPopper 2y ago
  I thought it was the warrant canary of their email provider (Riseup) that died in 2016. Did Wikileaks ever even have a canary? Riseup currently has a canary[1], they state that it would not trigger for "gag orders, FISA court orders, National Security Letters" which seems like it makes it pretty useless. 1. https://riseup.net/en/canary https://riseup.net/en/canary
  - whoitwas 2y ago
    From wikileaks: https://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks_talk:PGP_Keys https://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks_talk:PGP_Keys
    - b112 2y ago
      This says nothing about it being a canary. All canaries are stated as such. Instead, all I see is some debate about PGP. I can believe that only one submission ever used it. PGP is not friendly to people who barely undersrand how computers work (99.999% of the population), and some panicking whistleblower isn't interested in taking a layman's course in crypto to send some docs. So why would wikileaks renew their useless(from their perspective) PGP key?
- edm0nd 2y ago
  Wikileaks in general (as a website) has been dead for years now. Just go look at the website. Last update in the Leaks section is from 2018. Last update in the News section is from 2021. I'm interested to see if Assange brings it back to life.
rtpg 2y ago
I thought there was some story about Wikileaks receiving a bunch of stuff regarding Russian gov't officials and there was internal debate in the org and it ended up not being published. Was that just a made up story?
- bardan 2y ago
  It isn't made up. It was during one of the email leaks when the org was stretched to it's limits. Suddenly they get these documents that they don't have time to fully parse and don't look very interesting anyway. Immediately there are dozens of articles put out simultaneously about how Wikileaks refused to publish Russian documents. I guess they learned about the documents being passed to Wikileaks in the first place, wonder who let them know? The documents were later published elsewhere and nobody cared because they were uninteresting.
  - rtpg 2y ago
    I mean all of their leaks are politically motivated, they are axiomatically a cutout. acting scandalized that someone tried to leak stuff is weird. I get the overworked argument in theory, but odd they didn’t publish it at all in the end.
    - bardan 2y ago
      As I mentioned they were in the middle of one of the biggest releases in their history, the submitted documents didn't look interesting and indeed when they were published nobody cared. Do you know what they were? Publishers won't just publish any old trash you send them.
- GolfPopper 2y ago
  Foreign Policy: WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government During U.S. Presidential Campaign https://archive.is/ztpnZ https://archive.is/ztpnZ
  - rendall 2y ago

by harry8 2y ago

whoitwas 2y ago

Wikileaks canary died a long, long time ago. Nothing from them has been trustworthy for a long time.

harry8 2y ago
[flagged]
- whoitwas 2y ago
  What? It's true. Wikileaks had a canary to let everyone know if they were compromised. The canary died and so they can't be seen as reliable.
  - harry8 2y ago
    Again. What canary? Where is the source?
- throwup238 2y ago
  Your comment has no substance and is against house rules: > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. > Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did. Leave the moderating to dang, it's his job and he gets paid for it. If you have nothing to say, don't reply at all.
  - whoitwas 2y ago
    I would have to dig up a decade old computer or scour the web for years. THis is nonsense. It's 100% true that Wikileaks has a cryptographic canary that expired sometime after Julian Assange was incarcerated.
    - harry8 2y ago
      Forgive me, I've never heard of a "cryptographic canary." Google tuned up nothing for me about what it is or how it relates to wikileaks. It gave me the strong impression of being nonsense. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Have you got a link for what it is? My prior is that any evidence of substance that contributed to a belief in wikileaks being untrustworthy would be /very/ easy to find in many locations. Maybe it's not but I can't think why. Perhaps you know?
      - whoitwas 2y ago
        Wikileaks information was trustworthy and accurate. It may still be that the information prior to their canary expiring is okay, but anything released after can't be trusted. I'd assume that once the canary died whichever actors compromised them scrubbed it. It's been over a decade now, but I do have a machine somewhere with evidence. Some nerd bigger than me here certainly has evidence available in a dropbox or somewhere accessible. I don't.
        harry8 2y ago
        What is the canary? Source?
      - vikingerik 2y ago
        A canary goes something like "This website has not received or acted on any government orders to disclose or modify or remove material." When they ever do, then they remove that notice. The government enforcement usually includes a gag order prohibiting the target from saying that they're under orders, so the intent is that you can infer government gag pressure by the canary having been removed. Wikileaks used to have such a notice and no longer does, so we assume government enforcement is why. I'm not sure what the cryptographic part has to do with anything. I'd guess it was signed in a way that you can verify the government itself didn't tamper with the notice.
GolfPopper 2y ago
I thought it was the warrant canary of their email provider (Riseup) that died in 2016. Did Wikileaks ever even have a canary? Riseup currently has a canary[1], they state that it would not trigger for "gag orders, FISA court orders, National Security Letters" which seems like it makes it pretty useless. 1. https://riseup.net/en/canary https://riseup.net/en/canary
- whoitwas 2y ago
  From wikileaks: https://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks_talk:PGP_Keys https://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks_talk:PGP_Keys
  - b112 2y ago
    This says nothing about it being a canary. All canaries are stated as such. Instead, all I see is some debate about PGP. I can believe that only one submission ever used it. PGP is not friendly to people who barely undersrand how computers work (99.999% of the population), and some panicking whistleblower isn't interested in taking a layman's course in crypto to send some docs. So why would wikileaks renew their useless(from their perspective) PGP key?
edm0nd 2y ago
Wikileaks in general (as a website) has been dead for years now. Just go look at the website. Last update in the Leaks section is from 2018. Last update in the News section is from 2021. I'm interested to see if Assange brings it back to life.

rtpg 2y ago

I thought there was some story about Wikileaks receiving a bunch of stuff regarding Russian gov't officials and there was internal debate in the org and it ended up not being published. Was that just a made up story?

bardan 2y ago
It isn't made up. It was during one of the email leaks when the org was stretched to it's limits. Suddenly they get these documents that they don't have time to fully parse and don't look very interesting anyway. Immediately there are dozens of articles put out simultaneously about how Wikileaks refused to publish Russian documents. I guess they learned about the documents being passed to Wikileaks in the first place, wonder who let them know? The documents were later published elsewhere and nobody cared because they were uninteresting.
- rtpg 2y ago
  I mean all of their leaks are politically motivated, they are axiomatically a cutout. acting scandalized that someone tried to leak stuff is weird. I get the overworked argument in theory, but odd they didn’t publish it at all in the end.
  - bardan 2y ago
    As I mentioned they were in the middle of one of the biggest releases in their history, the submitted documents didn't look interesting and indeed when they were published nobody cared. Do you know what they were? Publishers won't just publish any old trash you send them.
GolfPopper 2y ago
Foreign Policy: WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government During U.S. Presidential Campaign https://archive.is/ztpnZ https://archive.is/ztpnZ
- rendall 2y ago