wybiral

21 ms·

181.
by wybiral 8y ago
Another interesting (and more practical) use of the favicon is visit duration tracking without JS: https://twitter.com/davywtf/status/951203191944773632 Basically the favicon connection to the server stays open se
182.
by wybiral 8y ago
> If tomorrow there is a leak of Russian documents corroborating the American story that arent obviously fabricated then I'll take that as clear evidence that it was true. You mean like what Dutch intelligence is corroborating?
183.
by wybiral 8y ago
> The fact that it's "generally accepted" among the media and intelligentsia is no reason to assume it's actually true. They're the same suckers who bought the WMD lie. For what it's worth, the intel communi
184.
by wybiral 8y ago
> It's McCarthyism (not to mention fantastical) to declare that Russia buying a couple of Facebook ads and operating some online trolls was the reason why the election was swung. That's just people looking for an easy answer to
185.
by wybiral 8y ago
> McCarthyism You say that like there isn't overwhelming evidence of Russian influence operations in western democracies and widespread cyber warfare going on as we speak. It's one thing to make the counter argument that the US
186.
by wybiral 8y ago
They put the conspiracy theory on their site [1], not just the emails. It says "speculative" now, but it's there. Why don't they put all speculative stories related to candidates on their site? [1] https://our
187.
by wybiral 8y ago
> WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. They published the PizzaGate conspiracy theory.
188.
by wybiral 8y ago
There were private messages of Assange saying he wanted the GOP to win because they wouldn't be able to get anything done, which is a hint about how he feels for US government. Maybe it's just a coincidence that they only leaked R
189.
by wybiral 8y ago
They seem to only care about stories that are critical of Western intelligence while ignoring the (or withholding?) leaks that don't align with that agenda.
190.
by wybiral 8y ago
> If they had some crazy leak to make, it doesn’t seem like something they would just sit on to use as personal leverage for assange. Really? They seem to have a narrow focus of interest with their leaks. I wouldn't put something li
191.
by wybiral 8y ago
> Any why would a system that takes into account actual benefit to the public or not, to absolve someone of something that is otherwise a crime, would be tantamount to "anarchy"? Without a clear set of laws things get messy rea
192.
by wybiral 8y ago
> The case for whistleblowing hinges on that reality. It's not about whistleblowing it's about hacking a DoD account to access classified military intelligence.
193.
by wybiral 8y ago
And that decision is up to the country who has him in custody, which is the UK right now. They've refused extradition for hacking before in the case of Gary McKinnon [1] due to fears that he could end up in Guantanamo so we'll see
194.
by wybiral 8y ago
> A case like this is how we determine if journalists are allowed to hack into government databases. Which, considering the broad definition of "journalist" here, might mean that we're free to hack anything as long as we p
195.
by wybiral 8y ago
> Her "crime" was basically naive, opportunistic networking with influential people Yeah, under the direction of Russian officials, as an unregistered agent on their behalf.
196.
by wybiral 8y ago
It wasn't instructions. Manning gave the hash to them so they could crack it and gain access. In that case WikiLeaks were the ones cracking a password to access classified DoD documents.
197.
by wybiral 8y ago
This is a wild take though, because seeking information (details, clarification) from something a source gives you is not the same as asking the source for the password hash of a DoD server so you can crack it and gain unauthorized access t
198.
by wybiral 8y ago
The law isn't perfect, in any country, and that's never going to change. We need to vote for leaders who will reform it in the direction that we want. But the fact that some people get away with crimes doesn't mean we should
199.
by wybiral 8y ago
Discussing something and conspiring to do it are legally two different things. Their communications had INTENT to do it. They were planning to do it. Conspiring. > To my knowledge, Wikileaks has never actively participated in the hacking
200.
by wybiral 8y ago
It sounds like you don't believe in extradition at all, but there is precedence for this and most western countries are on board. It's not just the US, UK, and Australia. And the conspiracy wasn't just cracking the password,
201.
by wybiral 8y ago
Well, think of it this way: imagine that you were trying to help someone else hack the Australian Department of Defense. Should you face an investigation and trial for it or are you immune because you're not Australian? The US might ex
202.
by wybiral 8y ago
It's really up to the UK whether to extradite, but yeah extradition is a thing that several allied countries do to prevent people from being able to commit crimes in other countries without consequence. I get the concerns, but the char
203.
by wybiral 8y ago
For the sake of not confusing things here, forget about the data they leaked, they already had access to it. They were trying to crack the password of DoD accounts to cover up where they got the data and possibly access more data. But that&
204.
by wybiral 8y ago
Most of the cries about 1st Amendment ignore the fact that the grand jury proceeded with the indictment because they have Jabber records of WikiLeaks discussing cracking the password of a Department of Defense database. The next time I get
205.
by wybiral 8y ago
So your position is that the US government can't be trusted on anything so there's no point in justice or laws?
206.
by wybiral 8y ago
But Capone DID commit the crime of tax evasion. And Assange appears to have committed the crime of conspiring to hack a Department of Defense system. You're talking about it like they're innocent, but really they just got more att
207.
by wybiral 8y ago
The Capone comparison is probably because there is speculation (for good reason) that the US wants to punish Assange for things unrelated to the hacking conspiracy charge he was actually indicted for... But since they can't do that dir
208.
by wybiral 8y ago
This is ambiguous... Who are "they"? "Evidence" of what?
209.
by wybiral 8y ago
Yeah, but do they know that other human beings are listening to it?
210.
by wybiral 8y ago
There's a team of people at Mozilla working on adding an offline speech recognition API [1] to Firefox. This is particularly exciting to me because I have a SpeechRecognition-based "assistant" framework that I would love to m

More ›