4 ms·

> Because the data is sensitive and full of PII, DDoSecrets is only sharing it with journalists and researchers. Yeah I'm normally a big proponent of responsib

> Because the data is sensitive and full of PII, DDoSecrets is only sharing it with journalists and researchers. Yeah I'm normally a big proponent of responsible disclosure, but in this case, I think the more painful, damaging leak is required. Firstly, autocrats, fascists & oligarchs don't care that much if you hack them. They will just keep using these tools (or another one just like it) ignoring the correct procedure their government already wants them to use. The citizens of affected nations need to be made angry by their leaders' failure to do their jobs correctly, and that's only gonna happen when there are consequences for their actions. Their incompetence put their nations at risk, and now it's clear they have failed to keep their intel safe. They have failed hard, let them fail hard. Second, journalists and researchers have almost completely lost their power. In a non-democratic world (we're nearly there, just give them a little more time), when a journalist exposes corruption or incompetency, that journalist/researcher is simply silenced by the government. Silence the journalists and nobody knows what's going on so oppression can continue unchecked. Every person who gets silenced has a greater chilling effect on the whole society; nobody wants to be next. This is how authoritarians gain power. Oppression with no resistance or consequence legitimizes the oppression. If we were just talking about typical corporate incompetence re: security, and the only thing at stake is a single stock or individuals' data, I would say disclose responsibly. But when it comes to stopping autocracy, the gloves have to come off. They sure as shit aren't gonna play by any rules, so neither should we.

CobrastanJorji 1y ago
> The citizens of affected nations need to be made angry by their leaders' failure to do their jobs correctly, and that's only gonna happen when there are consequences for their actions. This is a really dangerous line of thinking. It's the line of thought that slides forwards to "I love America so much, but to save America I have to get Americans to really feel the pain, and to do that I need to <horrible violence> to them to wake them up and make them see how things are bad." Hurting people in order to make them see how they are being hurt is almost never the right call.
- scheeseman486 1y ago
  You're describing accelerationism and while the ethics behind it are iffy at best, history contends that it does work to help spur revolution.
  - CobrastanJorji 1y ago
    Lots of shitty, evil things work really well. Most people don't do evil just because they love evil. They do it because it works best. Lying, propaganda, and shooting a bunch of people are also really effective techniques to spur revolution, but that doesn't mean they're good ideas.
- fumeux_fume 1y ago
  This is a really dangerous line of thinking. It's the line of thought that slides forwards to "I love America so much, but to save America I have lie and cover up the truth of the <horrible violence> being done to them so they'll never see how bad things have gotten." Lying to people in order to make them never see how they are being hurt is almost never the right call.
- oivey 1y ago
  That quote does not say anything about citizens inflicting pain on others. That’s such a strange way to read it. It’s saying to vote shitty leaders out. I’m not sure what you think any other possible alternative there could be.
- TechDebtDevin 1y ago
  What if you're hurting people to prevent them from hurting people...
- rtpg 1y ago
  I feel like it's valuable to not flatten the context here. We are talking about leaking texts by the Trump admin (and I guess some law enforcement agencies using this?). There is a lot of daylight between dropping a bunch of texts for government officials and committing horrible violence against people as a whole! These are not the same thing! One could be good/fine while the other is bad! Having said that I would worry for a WikiLeaks-style "oh now this random person's info is out there because it was in one of these e-mails". I just want to see the gossip
protocolture 1y ago
Completely agree. We had the Cabinet Leaks in Aus https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-31/cabinet-files-reveal-inner-government-decisions/9168442 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-31/cabinet-files-reveal-... The national broadcaster picked 2 things to report on, then gave the rest of it back to the government. The act of helping cover this shit up likely changed the course of politics in this country for decades. Theres likely stuff in that cabinet that was well in the public interest and needed disclosure. Signalgate or whatever is likely the same. And I dont care which party it harms or whatever. It seems relevant that people should have more information, not less considering everything that is happening.
afavour 1y ago
> The citizens of affected nations need to be made angry by their leaders' failure to do their jobs correctly, and that's only gonna happen when there are consequences for their actions. The consequences likely wouldn’t be felt by those leaders though. Who knows what info is in those logs about informants, agents etc etc. Leak it openly and they’re dead.
3036e4 1y ago
They don't need to "silence journalists", since a large number of people were duped to think real truth comes from random anonymous accounts on social media or from some charismatic political influencer they follow. It doesn't matter what leaks are exposed when it can just be handwaved as "fake news" and enough voters will buy that.
- Ray20 1y ago
  >It doesn't matter what leaks are exposed when it can just be handwaved as "fake news" and enough voters will buy that. Especially in conditions when you don't have to lie at that. It's not because voters are so gullible that they are ready to believe any word of a charismatic leader. The loss of trust to the mainstream media and to the scientific community is a natural phenomenon in environment when they only tell lies to push their political agenda.
- megous 1y ago
  Journalists being a "check on the government" is a tale for the gullible. That's why there doesn't need to be any silencing of them. Glory to the exceptions, of course.
landl0rd 1y ago
[flagged]
- bigbacaloa 1y ago
  [dead]
- mschoch 1y ago
  [dead]

CobrastanJorji 1y ago

> The citizens of affected nations need to be made angry by their leaders' failure to do their jobs correctly, and that's only gonna happen when there are consequences for their actions. This is a really dangerous line of thinking. It's the line of thought that slides forwards to "I love America so much, but to save America I have to get Americans to really feel the pain, and to do that I need to <horrible violence> to them to wake them up and make them see how things are bad." Hurting people in order to make them see how they are being hurt is almost never the right call.

scheeseman486 1y ago
You're describing accelerationism and while the ethics behind it are iffy at best, history contends that it does work to help spur revolution.
- CobrastanJorji 1y ago
  Lots of shitty, evil things work really well. Most people don't do evil just because they love evil. They do it because it works best. Lying, propaganda, and shooting a bunch of people are also really effective techniques to spur revolution, but that doesn't mean they're good ideas.
fumeux_fume 1y ago
This is a really dangerous line of thinking. It's the line of thought that slides forwards to "I love America so much, but to save America I have lie and cover up the truth of the <horrible violence> being done to them so they'll never see how bad things have gotten." Lying to people in order to make them never see how they are being hurt is almost never the right call.
oivey 1y ago
That quote does not say anything about citizens inflicting pain on others. That’s such a strange way to read it. It’s saying to vote shitty leaders out. I’m not sure what you think any other possible alternative there could be.
TechDebtDevin 1y ago
What if you're hurting people to prevent them from hurting people...
rtpg 1y ago
I feel like it's valuable to not flatten the context here. We are talking about leaking texts by the Trump admin (and I guess some law enforcement agencies using this?). There is a lot of daylight between dropping a bunch of texts for government officials and committing horrible violence against people as a whole! These are not the same thing! One could be good/fine while the other is bad! Having said that I would worry for a WikiLeaks-style "oh now this random person's info is out there because it was in one of these e-mails". I just want to see the gossip

protocolture 1y ago

Completely agree. We had the Cabinet Leaks in Aus https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-31/cabinet-files-reveal-inner-government-decisions/9168442 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-31/cabinet-files-reveal-... The national broadcaster picked 2 things to report on, then gave the rest of it back to the government. The act of helping cover this shit up likely changed the course of politics in this country for decades. Theres likely stuff in that cabinet that was well in the public interest and needed disclosure. Signalgate or whatever is likely the same. And I dont care which party it harms or whatever. It seems relevant that people should have more information, not less considering everything that is happening.

afavour 1y ago

> The citizens of affected nations need to be made angry by their leaders' failure to do their jobs correctly, and that's only gonna happen when there are consequences for their actions. The consequences likely wouldn’t be felt by those leaders though. Who knows what info is in those logs about informants, agents etc etc. Leak it openly and they’re dead.

3036e4 1y ago

They don't need to "silence journalists", since a large number of people were duped to think real truth comes from random anonymous accounts on social media or from some charismatic political influencer they follow. It doesn't matter what leaks are exposed when it can just be handwaved as "fake news" and enough voters will buy that.

Ray20 1y ago
>It doesn't matter what leaks are exposed when it can just be handwaved as "fake news" and enough voters will buy that. Especially in conditions when you don't have to lie at that. It's not because voters are so gullible that they are ready to believe any word of a charismatic leader. The loss of trust to the mainstream media and to the scientific community is a natural phenomenon in environment when they only tell lies to push their political agenda.
megous 1y ago
Journalists being a "check on the government" is a tale for the gullible. That's why there doesn't need to be any silencing of them. Glory to the exceptions, of course.

landl0rd 1y ago

[flagged]

bigbacaloa 1y ago
[dead]
mschoch 1y ago
[dead]