6 ms·

Distributed Denial of Secrets

78 points by sabaimran 9mo ago

sabaimran 9mo ago
[dead]
aleksandrm 9mo ago
Wikileaks v2?
littlestymaar 9mo ago
[flagged]
- 420official 9mo ago
  What fundamental human rights are being lost by outing someone's ideology? I am not making a claim here, just asking for clarification.
  - littlestymaar 9mo ago
    It's not about outing ideology, it's about publishing personal information. And I believe privacy is a fundamental human right (yeah, bold take in this day and age but I'll die on that hill).
- Y-bar 9mo ago
  These people are actively working towards genociding groups of people. It’s not just a ”stupid ideology”. It’s a murderous ideology, it’s an ideology that actively denies the humanity and life of people. These people chose to do that, they chose to support and work their society towards a new holocaust.
  - littlestymaar 9mo ago
    > These people are actively working towards genociding groups of people (Emphasis mine). No they aren't. Or rather some of them may, but many aren't. Many of them are just brainwashed terminally online dudes who believe progressive values are why they can't be happy. These people don't actively work towards anything, they are literal losers. (I have a family relative who's like that, he says he wants to build a Christian family with many children to defend the white race, but he's desperately single and doesn't even show up in the events organized by his parents' parish to help young people found families. In fact, there are more girls than guys in these events, and they aren't the liberal type). The people who are actively working on helping the fascist deserve all what we can throw at them (and not just figuratively), but this isn't the kind of people you'll find in The WhiteLeaks.
    - computerthings 9mo ago
      [dead]
    - Y-bar 9mo ago
      The road to new genocides is a core tenet of white supremacy. Denying that is like denying that Buddhists meditate. Maybe you need to ask yourself why you are consistently trying to defend people who stand outside my home shouting seig heil and want to murder me and people like me?
      - littlestymaar 9mo ago
        > why you are consistently trying to defend people who stand outside my home shouting seig heil and want to murder me and people like me? I'm not. These people are actively doing evil things, and should be dealt with. But most of the people in these leaks aren't even “courageous” enough to do that. Most of them aren't actors, are lazy, idiotic bystanders who just happen to like what they see.
  - broochcoach 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - asmodeuslucifer 9mo ago
      The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has documented over 100 people killed in the United States and Canada in attacks committed by extremists linked to the white supremacist movement since 2014. google is your friend
      - wakawaka28 9mo ago
        So 10 per year across 2 countries? You know, Google also says that 20-30 people die of lightning strikes per year in the US alone. Lightning injury rates are higher still. The more you know!
        broochcoach 9mo ago
        [flagged]
        dang 9mo ago
        We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. It will eventually get your main account banned as well.
      - broochcoach 9mo ago
        [dead]
- bigbadfeline 9mo ago
  > Nazi ideology is disgusting Disgusting is the least of its problems. I'm not saying this in connection to the privacy issue, it's just weird to see something like "death is icky, it smells bad". > I don't think being an asshole with retarded ideology is enough to lose your fundamental human rights. I don't know who is being doxed by WhiteLeaks, but again, the bigger problem is that doxing creates threats to personal welfare, health and life. I'm not sure how doxing can be stopped in the current polarized political environment, both sides use it as a weapon... because it works as such. Maybe we should focus on that problem instead.
  - sabaimran 9mo ago
    The death of privacy is definitely a more fundamental issue here, outside of politics. In an ideal world, private citizens, even if they have notorious views, have a right to privacy.
    - bigbadfeline 9mo ago
      > In an ideal world, private citizens, even if they have notorious views, have a right to privacy. Privacy is definitely important, in an ideal world we'd like to have as much of it as possible but we are now in world that's far from ideal. > The death of privacy is definitely a more fundamental issue here, Well, my prior comment was about personal security and why it's so easily, and on so many levels, jeopardized by the lack of privacy. In that light, privacy isn't the more fundamental issue for sure. We know that "security through obscurity" isn't the best way to get there, it's rough analogy but it does apply here too. The fundamental issues are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we'd be in a very rough spot if high levels of secrecy were the only way to secure these. Even under the best of conditions, secrecy has a limited reach and lifespan, it simply doesn't play well with liberty and happiness. So, there are more fundamental issues than privacy, and while more privacy is definitely an enhancer, it's just a knife in gun fight.
- notepad0x90 9mo ago
  If your ideology involves hurting people, to a point, you should be left alone by the government. but by that same principle, others should be left alone too when they show similar levels of hostility or worse. You shouldn't lose your fundamental human rights, up to a point, that point is when you start believing and spreading a belief that other people should lose their fundamental human rights.
  - wakawaka28 9mo ago
    If only it were that simple. People seem to have to constantly argue about what human rights actually are. They use free speech to argue for all kinds of censorship for example. Censoring and harassing people who think differently will rarely do more than make them angry. Philosophers even centuries ago figured out that free speech is a most essential freedom and must be nearly unlimited in a free society, but it's a constant struggle to maintain this ideal in the face of the fearful and easily offended.
    - littlestymaar 9mo ago
      Free speech is always “free speech under some limits set by laws”, “free speech absolutism” is nonsense (and is only being claimed by people who will censor everything without laws and due process at the instant when they reach power, see Trump and Vance who are currently imposing a censorship never seen in the US in peacetime, or Musk and Twitter).
      - wakawaka28 9mo ago
        You are very mistaken if you think the current administration is uniquely bad for free speech. Biden and other libs censored a lot of people for his whole administration. Outside of speech that creates harmful and immediate situations like yelling "Fire" in a theater, free speech needs to be absolute or it is not free at all. This was all well-known philosophy but it seems every new generation has to fight about the same damn issue. Free speech advocates such as the Jews who rallied to protect the free speech of Nazis in the US decades ago understood very well that any restrictions on speech for any purpose would be used to censor people who desperately need to be allowed to speak. Musk may rub people wrong but he is a free speech advocate for the most part. To the extent he does censor for personal reasons, I must submit that liberals asked for this treatment before he bought it with their constant chanting of "It's a private platform, so free speech does not apply!" I cannot listen to complaints about this until liberals admit that they did censor conservatives, and that they are sorry. The only actual censorship the current government seems to be pursuing is censorship and harassment of critics of Israel. I don't like this at all but these censorious policies will probably be knocked down eventually.
- wakawaka28 9mo ago
  I bet a lot of the people who signed up to that site were just white people interested in dating people similar to themselves without being accused of racism. It's funny how there are dating and e-commerce sites made for every race, nationality, and ethnicity but when it comes to whites it is considered pure evil. You can't really shame people out of their preferences, even by calling them names.
  - littlestymaar 9mo ago
    There's an easy rebuttal for you: check a handful of user description and you'll see that they aren't “just white people interested in dating people similar to themselves”. In fact, the political affiliation drop down box only has flavor of white supremacism as options, included “national socialism” and a lot of users chose that one. > It's funny how there are dating and e-commerce sites made for every race, nationality, and ethnicity but when it comes to whites it is considered pure evil Maybe it's because every time this kind of white-focused websites pops out, it's always about attracting literal nazis like here, instead just white dudes…
ErenayDev 9mo ago
Why I can't enter site? https giving ssl protocol error. http redirecting me to: http://MY_IP_ADDRESS/landpage?op=1&ms=http://ddosecrets.com/ http://ddosecrets.com/ I don't think that's the purpose of the site.
- ErenayDev 9mo ago
  After 10 reloads, works now
- takipsizad 9mo ago
  its blocked in Turkey i am surprised it opened after any amount of trying
some_furry 9mo ago
DDoSecrets does a wonderful public service, and I'm glad they exist.
- broochcoach 9mo ago
  [dead]
  - wakawaka28 9mo ago
    I got that impression too. Gatekeeping sensitive information is not necessarily bad, but the entire thing is sketchy. For example, is it legal or ethical for this group to have Washington Post data that was leaked or stolen? Are we really supposed to be against something called "Free Speech Union" because of the owners having controversial views? There is clearly a political angle to most of the stuff I've seen at a glance, and a lot of politics on one side only.
    - regenschutz 9mo ago
      Most evil groups have "good" and "innocent" names in order to attract a following. The "Worker's Party of Korea" sounds like a great party for all Koreans out there to vote on. Likewise, the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" sounds, on paper, like a great political party for the German labourers out there. Unfortunately, both the WPK and the NSDAP are very evil organisations, with no real intentions of helping actual workers, but the names of their organisations wouldn't reveal that. You can't look at the name of an organisation to find out what their values and hidden agendas are. Names are the most valuable assets in any effective propaganda, and should therefore be seen as completely untrustworthy. The "Free Speech Union" don't just have "controversial views", they are actively spreading disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.
      - wakawaka28 9mo ago
        I agree about names in general but I know how fraught the topic of free speech is these days. I am a free speech absolutist in the same spirit as Voltaire. >The "Free Speech Union" don't just have "controversial views", they are actively spreading disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. The whole point of free speech rights is to protect speech that is disagreeable! COVID-19 "misinformation" censorship is a major pet peeve of mine. Just as with your point about names, people lie all the time about what constitutes "misinformation", "harmful", etc. Doctors and researchers were paid off and had their careers threatened for daring to question government policy in this case. Everyone else was threatened to force them to comply. This is not how science or freedom works. We're not talking about some zombie virus. We're talking about a disease with a very low mortality rate even at its peak, and a vaccine that objectively did not stop the spread. If a researcher did want to criticize the vax, they'd risk their career. So get f'd or get paid, some hard decision right? If politicians can be bought then so can researchers. Some of the powers that be would love you to give them the authority to censor people to influence your pet issues. They would declare your views to be misinformation or hate speech just as soon as you become inconvenient to them.

78 points by sabaimran 9mo ago

sabaimran 9mo ago

[dead]

aleksandrm 9mo ago

Wikileaks v2?

littlestymaar 9mo ago

[flagged]

420official 9mo ago
What fundamental human rights are being lost by outing someone's ideology? I am not making a claim here, just asking for clarification.
- littlestymaar 9mo ago
  It's not about outing ideology, it's about publishing personal information. And I believe privacy is a fundamental human right (yeah, bold take in this day and age but I'll die on that hill).
Y-bar 9mo ago
These people are actively working towards genociding groups of people. It’s not just a ”stupid ideology”. It’s a murderous ideology, it’s an ideology that actively denies the humanity and life of people. These people chose to do that, they chose to support and work their society towards a new holocaust.
- littlestymaar 9mo ago
  > These people are actively working towards genociding groups of people (Emphasis mine). No they aren't. Or rather some of them may, but many aren't. Many of them are just brainwashed terminally online dudes who believe progressive values are why they can't be happy. These people don't actively work towards anything, they are literal losers. (I have a family relative who's like that, he says he wants to build a Christian family with many children to defend the white race, but he's desperately single and doesn't even show up in the events organized by his parents' parish to help young people found families. In fact, there are more girls than guys in these events, and they aren't the liberal type). The people who are actively working on helping the fascist deserve all what we can throw at them (and not just figuratively), but this isn't the kind of people you'll find in The WhiteLeaks.
  - computerthings 9mo ago
    [dead]
  - Y-bar 9mo ago
    The road to new genocides is a core tenet of white supremacy. Denying that is like denying that Buddhists meditate. Maybe you need to ask yourself why you are consistently trying to defend people who stand outside my home shouting seig heil and want to murder me and people like me?
    - littlestymaar 9mo ago
      > why you are consistently trying to defend people who stand outside my home shouting seig heil and want to murder me and people like me? I'm not. These people are actively doing evil things, and should be dealt with. But most of the people in these leaks aren't even “courageous” enough to do that. Most of them aren't actors, are lazy, idiotic bystanders who just happen to like what they see.
- broochcoach 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - asmodeuslucifer 9mo ago
    The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has documented over 100 people killed in the United States and Canada in attacks committed by extremists linked to the white supremacist movement since 2014. google is your friend
    - wakawaka28 9mo ago
      So 10 per year across 2 countries? You know, Google also says that 20-30 people die of lightning strikes per year in the US alone. Lightning injury rates are higher still. The more you know!
      - broochcoach 9mo ago
        [flagged]
        dang 9mo ago
        We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. It will eventually get your main account banned as well.
    - broochcoach 9mo ago
      [dead]
bigbadfeline 9mo ago
> Nazi ideology is disgusting Disgusting is the least of its problems. I'm not saying this in connection to the privacy issue, it's just weird to see something like "death is icky, it smells bad". > I don't think being an asshole with retarded ideology is enough to lose your fundamental human rights. I don't know who is being doxed by WhiteLeaks, but again, the bigger problem is that doxing creates threats to personal welfare, health and life. I'm not sure how doxing can be stopped in the current polarized political environment, both sides use it as a weapon... because it works as such. Maybe we should focus on that problem instead.
- sabaimran 9mo ago
  The death of privacy is definitely a more fundamental issue here, outside of politics. In an ideal world, private citizens, even if they have notorious views, have a right to privacy.
  - bigbadfeline 9mo ago
    > In an ideal world, private citizens, even if they have notorious views, have a right to privacy. Privacy is definitely important, in an ideal world we'd like to have as much of it as possible but we are now in world that's far from ideal. > The death of privacy is definitely a more fundamental issue here, Well, my prior comment was about personal security and why it's so easily, and on so many levels, jeopardized by the lack of privacy. In that light, privacy isn't the more fundamental issue for sure. We know that "security through obscurity" isn't the best way to get there, it's rough analogy but it does apply here too. The fundamental issues are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we'd be in a very rough spot if high levels of secrecy were the only way to secure these. Even under the best of conditions, secrecy has a limited reach and lifespan, it simply doesn't play well with liberty and happiness. So, there are more fundamental issues than privacy, and while more privacy is definitely an enhancer, it's just a knife in gun fight.
notepad0x90 9mo ago
If your ideology involves hurting people, to a point, you should be left alone by the government. but by that same principle, others should be left alone too when they show similar levels of hostility or worse. You shouldn't lose your fundamental human rights, up to a point, that point is when you start believing and spreading a belief that other people should lose their fundamental human rights.
- wakawaka28 9mo ago
  If only it were that simple. People seem to have to constantly argue about what human rights actually are. They use free speech to argue for all kinds of censorship for example. Censoring and harassing people who think differently will rarely do more than make them angry. Philosophers even centuries ago figured out that free speech is a most essential freedom and must be nearly unlimited in a free society, but it's a constant struggle to maintain this ideal in the face of the fearful and easily offended.
  - littlestymaar 9mo ago
    Free speech is always “free speech under some limits set by laws”, “free speech absolutism” is nonsense (and is only being claimed by people who will censor everything without laws and due process at the instant when they reach power, see Trump and Vance who are currently imposing a censorship never seen in the US in peacetime, or Musk and Twitter).
    - wakawaka28 9mo ago
      You are very mistaken if you think the current administration is uniquely bad for free speech. Biden and other libs censored a lot of people for his whole administration. Outside of speech that creates harmful and immediate situations like yelling "Fire" in a theater, free speech needs to be absolute or it is not free at all. This was all well-known philosophy but it seems every new generation has to fight about the same damn issue. Free speech advocates such as the Jews who rallied to protect the free speech of Nazis in the US decades ago understood very well that any restrictions on speech for any purpose would be used to censor people who desperately need to be allowed to speak. Musk may rub people wrong but he is a free speech advocate for the most part. To the extent he does censor for personal reasons, I must submit that liberals asked for this treatment before he bought it with their constant chanting of "It's a private platform, so free speech does not apply!" I cannot listen to complaints about this until liberals admit that they did censor conservatives, and that they are sorry. The only actual censorship the current government seems to be pursuing is censorship and harassment of critics of Israel. I don't like this at all but these censorious policies will probably be knocked down eventually.
wakawaka28 9mo ago
I bet a lot of the people who signed up to that site were just white people interested in dating people similar to themselves without being accused of racism. It's funny how there are dating and e-commerce sites made for every race, nationality, and ethnicity but when it comes to whites it is considered pure evil. You can't really shame people out of their preferences, even by calling them names.
- littlestymaar 9mo ago
  There's an easy rebuttal for you: check a handful of user description and you'll see that they aren't “just white people interested in dating people similar to themselves”. In fact, the political affiliation drop down box only has flavor of white supremacism as options, included “national socialism” and a lot of users chose that one. > It's funny how there are dating and e-commerce sites made for every race, nationality, and ethnicity but when it comes to whites it is considered pure evil Maybe it's because every time this kind of white-focused websites pops out, it's always about attracting literal nazis like here, instead just white dudes…

ErenayDev 9mo ago

Why I can't enter site? https giving ssl protocol error. http redirecting me to: http://MY_IP_ADDRESS/landpage?op=1&ms=http://ddosecrets.com/ http://ddosecrets.com/ I don't think that's the purpose of the site.

ErenayDev 9mo ago
After 10 reloads, works now
takipsizad 9mo ago
its blocked in Turkey i am surprised it opened after any amount of trying

some_furry 9mo ago

DDoSecrets does a wonderful public service, and I'm glad they exist.

broochcoach 9mo ago
[dead]
- wakawaka28 9mo ago
  I got that impression too. Gatekeeping sensitive information is not necessarily bad, but the entire thing is sketchy. For example, is it legal or ethical for this group to have Washington Post data that was leaked or stolen? Are we really supposed to be against something called "Free Speech Union" because of the owners having controversial views? There is clearly a political angle to most of the stuff I've seen at a glance, and a lot of politics on one side only.
  - regenschutz 9mo ago
    Most evil groups have "good" and "innocent" names in order to attract a following. The "Worker's Party of Korea" sounds like a great party for all Koreans out there to vote on. Likewise, the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" sounds, on paper, like a great political party for the German labourers out there. Unfortunately, both the WPK and the NSDAP are very evil organisations, with no real intentions of helping actual workers, but the names of their organisations wouldn't reveal that. You can't look at the name of an organisation to find out what their values and hidden agendas are. Names are the most valuable assets in any effective propaganda, and should therefore be seen as completely untrustworthy. The "Free Speech Union" don't just have "controversial views", they are actively spreading disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.
    - wakawaka28 9mo ago
      I agree about names in general but I know how fraught the topic of free speech is these days. I am a free speech absolutist in the same spirit as Voltaire. >The "Free Speech Union" don't just have "controversial views", they are actively spreading disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. The whole point of free speech rights is to protect speech that is disagreeable! COVID-19 "misinformation" censorship is a major pet peeve of mine. Just as with your point about names, people lie all the time about what constitutes "misinformation", "harmful", etc. Doctors and researchers were paid off and had their careers threatened for daring to question government policy in this case. Everyone else was threatened to force them to comply. This is not how science or freedom works. We're not talking about some zombie virus. We're talking about a disease with a very low mortality rate even at its peak, and a vaccine that objectively did not stop the spread. If a researcher did want to criticize the vax, they'd risk their career. So get f'd or get paid, some hard decision right? If politicians can be bought then so can researchers. Some of the powers that be would love you to give them the authority to censor people to influence your pet issues. They would declare your views to be misinformation or hate speech just as soon as you become inconvenient to them.