Wikileaks

[Renton 17776]

No, it's absolutely spectacularly missing the point. I struggling to understand how such an obviously intelligent bloke as HF can be so dumb tbh.

[Rayvin 4964]

No, it's absolutely spectacularly missing the point. I struggling to understand how such an obviously intelligent bloke as HF can be so dumb tbh.

 

Ok but could you refute it with something?

[Rayvin 4964]

FWIW, I'm on the side of Wikileaks knowing exactly what they're doing and Assange fancying himself as a power broker, but I'm open as ever.

[Renton 17776]

Ok but could you refute it with something?

It's the principle that's wrong. Let's take a hypothetical scenario that might well be real. Let's say Russia has hacked all the emails from both Trump's and Clinton's campaign. Trumps are full of very condemning material, whereas Clinton's are tame but still fit a damaging narrative. So what does Russia do? It withholds the Trump emails and passes on the Clinton ones to publish, knowingly they will adversely affect her campaign. Come election day, it takes less than 1% swing to get Putin's man in.

 

HF says this doesn't matter, as some truth released is better than none. I say wikileaks have been played with disastrous results for the west. HF says it's up to me to prove it. I say wikileaks, even if well intentioned, are open to abuse but there is no way of proving it.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Renton

[ewerk 26345]

FWIW, I'm on the side of Wikileaks knowing exactly what they're doing and Assange fancying himself as a power broker, but I'm open as ever.

That's the crux of it for me. I believe that Wikileaks and Assange in particular are desperate to seem relevant and ITK. They're more about the attention than providing access to the 'truth' these days imo.

[Happy Face 29]

It's the principle that's wrong. Let's take a hypothetical scenario that might well be real. Let's say Russia has hacked all the emails from both Trump's and Clinton's campaign. Trumps are full of very condemning material, whereas Clinton's are tame but still fit a damaging narrative. So what does Russia do? It withholds the Trump emails and passes on the Clinton ones to publish, knowingly they will adversely affect her campaign. Come election day, it takes less than 1% swing to get Putin's man in.

 

HF says this doesn't matter, as some truth released is better than none. I say wikileaks have been played with disastrous results for the west. HF says it's up to me to prove it. I say wikileaks, even if well intentioned, are open to abuse but there is no way of proving it.

Evidence of collusion from other media outlets dismissed as unimportant but hypothetical collusion without any basis in reality condemned in the strongest terms.

 

Remarkable.

 

Edit: sorry, you weren't suggesting collusion. Nothing there that alters my opinion.

[Rayvin 4964]

That's the crux of it for me. I believe that Wikileaks and Assange in particular are desperate to seem relevant and ITK. They're more about the attention than providing access to the 'truth' these days imo.

 

I actually reckon Gloom's theory might be part of it - Assange desperate to get a power shift so he can finally get the fuck out of that embassy. I genuinely wouldn't be surprised or particularly critical of him for that, he must be fucking sick of it.

[Happy Face 29]

Very good read....

 

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN12X075

 

Bamford is considered a major authority on these matters.

[Renton 17776]

Evidence of collusion from other media outlets dismissed as unimportant but hypothetical collusion without any basis in reality condemned in the strongest terms.

 

Remarkable.

 

Edit: sorry, you weren't suggesting collusion. Nothing there that alters my opinion.

How on Earth have you missed the point again? These are 2 different issues and I didn't even make a point about the relationship between the MSM and either campaign. I'm highlighting the mechanism a foreign power could influence a western election through wikileaks. I'm nonplussed how you think this is acceptable. Edited November 11, 2016 by Renton

[Renton 17776]

I actually reckon Gloom's theory might be part of it - Assange desperate to get a power shift so he can finally get the fuck out of that embassy. I genuinely wouldn't be surprised or particularly critical of him for that, he must be fucking sick of it.

Didn't I say that a few days ago?

[Happy Face 29]

How on Earth have you missed the point again? These are 2 different issues and I didn't even make a point about the relationship between the MSM and either campaign. I'm highlighting the mechanism a foreign power could influence a western election through wikileaks. I'm nonplussed how you think this is acceptable.

 

I don't like governments meddling in democracy elsewhere and will criticise it anywhere it happens. 

 

This sort of interference has been outlined in detail where the US has engaged in it...

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-election-intelligence-commentary-idUSKCN10F1H5

 

Don't they reap what they sow?  There is no comparable evidence of Russia subverting Wikileaks here though.  Rather, in the article linked above James Bamford tells us :

 

"the sloppy, Inspector Clouseau-like nature of the Guccifer 2.0 operation, with someone hiding behind a silly Bolshevik cover name, and Russian language clues in the metadata, smacked more of either an amateur operation or a deliberate deception.

 

the Shadow Brokers released more information, including what they claimed is a list of hundreds of organizations that the NSA has targeted over more than a decade, complete with technical details. This offers further evidence that their information comes from a leaker inside the NSA rather than the Kremlin.

 

Imagining that Trump, a man with no political history whatsoever, might have a comparable trove to be shared would seem to me to be a longshot too.  That's not to say nothing has come out or could. He has been  exposed by the videos of bragging about sexual harrassment, suffered heavy criticism of his "university" as a scam and there were leaked tax records showing how little he's paid and his lack of charity.  

[Happy Face 29]

...if it was someone within the NSA as Bamford suggests, would that make Wikilieaks a more responsible leaker and hypothetical election swayer?

[Renton 17776]

I don't like governments meddling in democracy elsewhere and will criticise it anywhere it happens.

 

This sort of interference has been outlined in detail where the US has engaged in it...

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-election-intelligence-commentary-idUSKCN10F1H5

 

Don't they reap what they sow? There is no comparable evidence of Russia subverting Wikileaks here though. Rather, in the article linked above James Bamford tells us :

 

 

"the sloppy, Inspector Clouseau-like nature of the Guccifer 2.0 operation, with someone hiding behind a silly Bolshevik cover name, and Russian language clues in the metadata, smacked more of either an amateur operation or a deliberate deception.

the Shadow Brokers released more information, including what they claimed is a list of hundreds of organizations that the NSA has targeted over more than a decade, complete with technical details. This offers further evidence that their information comes from a leaker inside the NSA rather than the Kremlin.

Imagining that Trump, a man with no political history whatsoever, might have a comparable trove to be shared would seem to me to be a longshot too. That's not to say nothing has come out or could. He has been exposed by the videos of bragging about sexual harrassment, suffered heavy criticism of his "university" as a scam and there were leaked tax records showing how little he's paid and his lack of charity.

Tu quoque. Stop attempting to deflect the discussion here. The subject here is wikileaks. You said a page back the source of the leaks they publish was irrelevant, I couldn't disagree more. If they don't know the motives of the leakers (and really how could they) they are allowing the leakers undue influence. They're being hustled. And this isn't trivial, this is potentially world changing.

 

What is entirely irrelevant to this discussion here is what the US agencies have done to other countries in the past. As I try to avoid logical fallacies I'll help you out with a simple expression here, which is, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

[ChezGiven 0]

Bamfors connects the shadow brokers to the NSA not Guccifer 2.0. There is no evidence that the two are connected. All he does is conjecture that Russian hackers wouldn't use a simple username.

 

The claim from Guccifer 2.0 to being a lone wold is the only evidence that the hack didn't come from Russia whereas most other sites provide evidence of the link to Fancy Bears, who are known to be Russian hackers.

 

So Bamford might be right about the NSA cyber tools but he doesn't provide anything other than opinion that Guccifer 2.0 is not Russian. Seems far fetched to me - am happy to agree that there may also be an NSA insider also leaking material but nothing suggests there have to be the same groups. Fancy Bears are behind Guccifer and it was a simple tool so the Russian could deny it. Just my opinion of course

[Happy Face 29]

Tu quoque. Stop attempting to deflect the discussion here. The subject here is wikileaks. You said a page back the source of the leaks they publish was irrelevant, I couldn't disagree more. If they don't know the motives of the leakers (and really how could they) they are allowing the leakers undue influence. They're being hustled. And this isn't trivial, this is potentially world changing.

 

What is entirely irrelevant to this discussion here is what the US agencies have done to other countries in the past. As I try to avoid logical fallacies I'll help you out with a simple expression here, which is, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Your preference would be for Wikileaks to suppress evidence of wrong doing they obtain and know to be true?Like the NYT did on behalf of George Bush ahead of his re-election and got severely criticised for.

[ChezGiven 0]

European leaders are expressing fear that the upcoming elections in France and Germany will be influenced by Russians. Are they being paid by the Clinton foundation too? Or is this the global network of elites that Parky talks about?

 

Or being more rational about it, is it because the known and proven state sponsored Russian hackers are being deployed to influence political outcomes?

[ChezGiven 0]

Your preference would be for Wikileaks to suppress evidence of wrong doing they obtain and know to be true?Like the NYT did on behalf of George Bush ahead of his re-election and got severely criticised for.

Who cares? The issue here is that Russia used Wikileaks to influence the US election and your hard on for Hilary lying about emails was part of the reason this got ignored

[Rayvin 4964]

Didn't I say that a few days ago?

 

Ah maybe you did. Sorry if so - either way, I broadly agree with it.

[Happy Face 29]

Whether or not Trump was the result Wikileaks wanted or actually swayed, they're revelling in the concerns he exposes

 

[Park Life 70]

Chinese are probably doing more of it than the rest of the world combined.

[Park Life 70]

European leaders are expressing fear that the upcoming elections in France and Germany will be influenced by Russians. Are they being paid by the Clinton foundation too? Or is this the global network of elites that Parky talks about?

 

Or being more rational about it, is it because the known and proven state sponsored Russian hackers are being deployed to influence political outcomes?

Maybe your lot did it...Clinton was getting set to go after Big Pharma and a man fitting your description was seen with the Trump team.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

European leaders are expressing fear that the upcoming elections in France and Germany will be influenced by Russians. Are they being paid by the Clinton foundation too? Or is this the global network of elites that Parky talks about?

 

Or being more rational about it, is it because the known and proven state sponsored Russian hackers are being deployed to influence political outcomes?

Deleted my response to this when I meant to edit it.

 

Basically said hackers are being deployed to influence political outcomes, not just Russian. The correct response to that is not to suppress news reporting anywhere. It's down to politicians, media and lobbyists to curtail activity that will be embarrassing when exposed. Or it's up to them to publicly support and implement encryption standards that secure everyone's online correspondence.

 

Hackers are also being deployed to attack IT systems that damage infrastructure of other nations. That's the scariest thing Bamford covers. The fact Biden so brazenly and publicly told Russia that the US was going to perform a cyber attack in response to the Clinton email hack he's provided no evidence Russia were responsible for. Whether the next IT disaster in Russia is just an IT issue, or is an attack that eminates from Iran, or China or the US, Biden has put the US on the hook for it publicly and almost guaranteed that escalation follows.

 

Scary thought with Trump as commander in Chief.

[Happy Face 29]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3932110/Swedish-moves-interview-Julian-Assange-embassy-welcomed-Ecuador.html

 

Sweden to interview and take dna from assange in the Ecuadorian embassy after 6 years of arbitrarily detaining him.

[ewerk 26345]

Who has detained him now?

[ewerk 26345]

And again.

 

 

How can an organisation with such high moral aspirations justify peddling such a blatantly false statement?