Wikileaks

[Happy Face 29]

Since when has Clinton opposed encryption? I thought she opposed forcing tech companies to create back doors?

 

She wants encryptiopn with a back door

 

She doesn't even understand what she's talking about. Her own people mock her position as wanting to "do the impossible".

 

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/14/hillary-clintons-encryption-proposal-was-impossible-said-top-adviser/

[ewerk 26550]

She wants encryptiopn with a back door

 

She doesn't even understand what she's talking about. Her own people mock her position as wanting to "do the impossible".

 

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/14/hillary-clintons-encryption-proposal-was-impossible-said-top-adviser/

 

You say that she wants encryption with a back door then link to an article that explicitly states that she doesn't want back doors?

 

Her position is to rely on zero day hacks which is pretty much a continuation of what has been happening over the last decade. What's so controversial about that?

[Renton 17858]

Having read the BBC's article and all 16 of the 'juciest' leaks it's nearly impossible to be outraged by any of them. As far as presidential campaigns go this seems to be incredibly clean.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37639370

"Bernie is a doofus".

 

Utterly contemptible conduct from the Clinton campaign right there, she should resign immediately. Lock her up.

[Happy Face 29]

You say that she wants encryption with a back door then link to an article that explicitly states that she doesn't want back doors?

 

Her position is to rely on zero day hacks which is pretty much a continuation of what has been happening over the last decade. What's so controversial about that?

 

 

"She called for secure communication while allowing the government to read messages."

 

That's what her campaign saw as impossible.

 

I think the actual email wikileaks shared is an interesting discussion on the matter.  They discuss how they should evolve what she blurted out about not understanding the technology into an actual policy.

 

Couldn't we tell tech off the record that she had in mind the malware/key strokes idea (insert malware into a device that you know is a target, to capture keystrokes before they are encrypted). Or that she had in mind really super code breaking by the NSA. But not the backdoor per se?

 

 

 

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9181

 

Not aware that this has developed into an actual campaign policy position that the US will stop "collecting it all", encourage people to use encrypted services and support companies in providing that service, and formalise a depoartment which hacks into criminals tech when a warrant has been issued.

 

You're asking me what is controversial about the last decade of NSA privacy erosions?  If you've not paid attention to why I think it's been bad, look up Snowden's thoughts.

[Happy Face 29]

"Bernie is a doofus".

 

Utterly contemptible conduct from the Clinton campaign right there, she should resign immediately. Lock her up.

 

Crazy that a private barb is one of their 16 rather than the campaign, DNC and reporters co-ordinating public attacks on Sanders based on falsehoods.

[ewerk 26550]

It isn't controversial in that it isn't a major deviation from what has been going on. I'm not saying that makes it right. It just doesn't make it front page news.

 

The biggest fuck up here is that Clinton was speaking on a subject which she didn't fully understand. Which is a failure of her staff really.

[Happy Face 29]

She should resign immediately. Lock her up.

 

 

 

 

4. Whether something is “shocking” or “earth-shattering” is an irrelevant standard

 

Democratic partisans have attempted to belittle or dismiss the stories from the Podesta archive by claiming that none of them reveal any earth-shattering or “shocking” scandals (that’s the same tactic used to dismiss away all revelations about institutions people love, including from the Manning and Snowden files). They appear to believe it’s interesting that devoted supporters of Hillary Clinton have decided that none of these documents reflect poorly on her in any significant way.

 

But this is an inane standard to apply. The vast majority of reporting done by journalists is not about uncovering cataclysmic scandals or “shocking” people. Whether something is “shocking” is not the standard of what is newsworthy. I would hope nobody finds it remotely “shocking” that Donald Trump is a serial groper of women; despite its being utterly expected, it’s still newsworthy to report it. Journalism is about shining a light on what the most powerful factions do in the dark, about helping people understand how they operate. Not every story is going to be “shocking” or spawn a new, major scandal. That doesn’t mean it should be suppressed.

 

This reaction is also based in a self-absorbed bias. Many longtime journalists or political junkies already know that politicians are typically disingenuous, dishonest, and manipulate public opinion, and this jaded perspective causes them to react with boredom toward stories that reveal this. But journalism isn’t about entertaining veterans of political journalism or feeding them new tidbits that they did not already know. It’s about providing the public with information that they can use to better understand the world and, in particular, what those who wield the greatest power are doing. Just because a political journalist thinks he already knows something doesn’t mean that the general public already knows it, or doesn’t want to learn more about it.

 

Moreover, that certain behavior is “common” among politicians does not mean that it is justified, nor does it negate the newsworthiness of revealing new details about it. To dismiss stories showing the dishonesty or manipulations of politicians on the ground that such behavior is “common” is just a way of normalizing that behavior.

 

The Podesta emails provide unprecedented insight into how a modern presidential campaign operates, the tactics it uses for shaping public opinion, the trade-offs and compromises it makes to secure support and obtain power. Beyond that, they reveal the thought processes and behaviors of the top advisers to the person who, very shortly, will almost certainly occupy the Oval Office — and, in some instances, the thought processes of Hillary Clinton herself. As such, even if they don’t “shock” people who have worked for 30 years in journalism, they are of great journalistic value for showing the public what takes place behind the curtain and how the most politically powerful people in the nation speak and reason about public matters when they think nobody is watching.

 

 

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/on-wikileaks-journalism-and-privacy-reporting-on-the-podesta-archive-is-an-easy-call/

[ewerk 26550]

The problem isn't that they don't shock experienced political journalists. It's that they don't shock anyone. The only thing that is surprising about them that they don't reflect particularly badly on the candidate, which is why the Trump comparison is absurd.

 

The fact that the emails were hacked in the first place is newsworthy. The actual 'revelations' not so much.

[Happy Face 29]

Like he says, people said exactly the same about manning and snowden leaks. I don't think they're as important as that, but given that they led to the resignation of the most senior DNC people, there is definite important wrong doing exposed.

 

I agree, that wrongdoing exposed is less important than the email security question and how all people get it, not just political elites.

 

But it was wrongdoing that was punished as a result of the leaks.

[NJS 3986]

The fact that she was as stupid and irresponsible to use a private email server in the first place is the issue for me - that's before she deleted 30000 mails.

[Rayvin 4964]

On the plus side, we can be fairly confident that her spell as president is going to keep Wikileaks in business...

[Happy Face 29]

100 podesta email revelations summarised

 

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com

[Happy Face 29]

 

FBI after Hilary again.

[ewerk 26550]

Two weeks before the election? The timing seems odd.

[Rayvin 4964]

They were supposed to do it the day before won't they? They're being generous here.

[Happy Face 29]

Two weeks before the election? The timing seems odd.

Opinion seems to be that he was in a shit position. If the investigation was revealed AFTER the election and he said nowt then he'd be in the shit.

 

As Obama's appointment I don't think he can be accused of a partisan witch hunt on behalf of the Republicans.

[Happy Face 29]

Maybe they'll turn over all the emails now though, like they publicly claimed they would but privately said they wouldn't

[ewerk 26550]

They never publicly claimed that as you well know.

 

Stop trying to influence our two USA voters.

[Rayvin 4964]

[Happy Face 29]

They never publicly claimed that as you well know.

 

Stop trying to influence our two USA voters.

 

Does anyone on here live in a swing state?  Would assume everyone's voting Green anyway

[Rayvin 4964]

Apparently some of the emails concern Hillary calling for vote rigging in Palestine. That's exactly the kind of bullshit Trump can use. More importantly, it's deplorable.

 

That said I only read that in my news feed on Facebook, can't confirm yet.

[Park Life 70]

There's rumours of a racism video. If that drops then all bets are off.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Park Life

[Rayvin 4964]

Agreed, that would be a game changer. Although - that's a fucking stupid reason for her to lose, objectively, since it has nothing to do with her character as a politician. It'd be kind of ironic to see her killed off by identity politics, but I can't stand that particular concept or narrative, so I wouldn't derive much satisfaction from it.

 

Here's the link to the Palestinian vote rigging...

 

http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/

Edited October 29, 2016 by Rayvin

[ewerk 26550]

Opinion seems to be that he was in a shit position. If the investigation was revealed AFTER the election and he said nowt then he'd be in the shit.

 

As Obama's appointment I don't think he can be accused of a partisan witch hunt on behalf of the Republicans.

Turns out he went public with this against DoJ advice.

[Happy Face 29]

Aye, comey preferred to cover his arse though.

 

FBI Director James Comey concluded, however, that informing Congress was better than waiting until after the election and hoping in the meantime that the fact of the discovery wouldn't leak.