Has Assange and Wikileaks been compromised ?

I think you should consider that WikiLeaks has pissed off some of the most powerful people around, so it is not exactly surprising that they have to cover their asses wherever they can. It may be frustrating not to get straight answers, but if they would be completely open about how they operate, they would definitely become more vulnerable. I am not saying that people should blindly trust them, but undermining their credibility would be exactly what people in power want. I think the best thing to do at this stage is to take a wait-and-see approach...

Edited January 13, 2017 by kloffy

I agree with the wait and see but no one is telling me Wikileaks is compromised, my doubts come from observing their behavior after negative Trump or Russian stories go mainstream, they are so quick to defend those two makes me wonder

Edited January 13, 2017 by Deer

  On 1/13/2017 at 4:45 AM, kloffy said:

I think you should consider that WikiLeaks has pissed off some of the most powerful people around, so it is not exactly surprising that they have to cover their asses wherever they can. It may be frustrating not to get straight answers, but if they would be completely open about how they operate, they would definitely become more vulnerable. I am not saying that people should blindly trust them, but undermining their credibility would be exactly what people in power want. I think the best thing to do at this stage is to take a wait-and-see approach...

Yeah but the hashes don't match

And that's about as huge as a red flag can possibly get

  On 1/13/2017 at 5:00 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Yeah but the hashes don't match

And that's about as huge as a red flag can possibly get

From the AMA:

 

  _JulianAssange said:

This is an obvious confusion promoted by the black-PR campaign against WikiLeaks and those it has manipulated. Pre-commitment hashes are not the same as download hashes. The pre-commmit hashes were issued in a completely different manner and are applied on decryption not before. So the "usual" argument is an obvious falsehood.

There could be any number of reasons why the hashes do not match. Of course one possibility we should take into account is that the insurance files have been compromised. However, if the files are decrypted and the hashes turn out to match, then it was much ado about nothing. In any case, IMO, this is not enough to invalidate the credibility of WikiLeaks. Any leaks that they have published so far have been accurate, and that is the only thing that counts...

Edited January 13, 2017 by kloffy

The discrepancy can't be fixed with words

Assange's or anyone else's

That's the whole point of the mechanism!!!!!!!

just gonna leave this here for people to keep in mind that think video is still proof these days, seems relevant to this thread...i found it kinda interesting

everybody knows technology will be the end of us, as a species we don't have the maturity to play with this wonderful tools 

can the same technology be used to fake a golden shower

if they can fake a moon landing ..

 

I always have to remind myself NOT to end up resolving to choose between trump's right and the left. We are in the midst of an intense war of misinformation what with the new Red Scare and fake news fear mongering. American Intelligence are still admitting in recent hearings that they have no hard evidence that Russia has hacked or significantly influenced the presidential election. But what they have done is poisoned the well by claiming it based on a hunch (also admitted to). News organizations that criticize this New McCarthyism are blacklisted by the government as fake news spread by Russian sympathizers. Don't let information divide you from your neighbor. If you voted for Clinton and your neighbor voted for trump you both did so because you felt compelled to do what you thought best based on what you sifted from the landfill of slander and propaganda. 

 

In addition, Trump won the electoral vote not the popular election. So how am I supposed to buy the fact that the electoral college voted the way they did based on some random fake news bites and Facebook clickbait put out by Putin? 

We can only change the world by putting energy towards creating the one we want to live in.  We are all in power.

  On 1/13/2017 at 8:29 AM, peace 7 said:

We can only change the world by putting energy towards creating the one we want to live in.  We are all in power.

 

This thread has now been compromised! By the power of Peace!

  On 1/13/2017 at 1:30 AM, Deer said:

I want to trust WikiLeaks and assange, we need truth fighters in this world but to quote Maryl Streep in the movie Doubt "I have doubts"

 

There is not truth, never was. There is only stuff that happend and chaotic subjective information that creates echo chamber feedback and memes.

Wikileaks is part of the problem now, not part of the solution. It doesn't even really matter whether they're compromised or not, either they're acting deliberately in what they see as their own interests, being manipulated into acting in others' interests (useful idiots), or being directly controlled by others (compromised), the end result is the same.

Yeah totally

  On 1/13/2017 at 5:00 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/13/2017 at 4:45 AM, kloffy said:

I think you should consider that WikiLeaks has pissed off some of the most powerful people around, so it is not exactly surprising that they have to cover their asses wherever they can. It may be frustrating not to get straight answers, but if they would be completely open about how they operate, they would definitely become more vulnerable. I am not saying that people should blindly trust them, but undermining their credibility would be exactly what people in power want. I think the best thing to do at this stage is to take a wait-and-see approach...

Yeah but the hashes don't match

And that's about as huge as a red flag can possibly get

 

I don't wanna sound obnoxious- but the argument you're making on their behalf IS the same argument governments and other powerful interests make against the "radical transparency" Wikileaks and others are agitating for.

good, "radical transparency" is a terrible idea. what about privacy?

  On 1/13/2017 at 1:21 PM, mammalsolidarity said:

 

  On 1/13/2017 at 5:00 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/13/2017 at 4:45 AM, kloffy said:

I think you should consider that WikiLeaks has pissed off some of the most powerful people around, so it is not exactly surprising that they have to cover their asses wherever they can. It may be frustrating not to get straight answers, but if they would be completely open about how they operate, they would definitely become more vulnerable. I am not saying that people should blindly trust them, but undermining their credibility would be exactly what people in power want. I think the best thing to do at this stage is to take a wait-and-see approach...

Yeah but the hashes don't match

And that's about as huge as a red flag can possibly get

I don't wanna sound obnoxious- but the argument you're making on their behalf IS the same argument governments and other powerful interests make against the "radical transparency" Wikileaks and others are agitating for.

I don't understand

I am *for* radical(ish) transparency

The problem is that WL is not transparent at all

And the hashes *would* match if shit was on the up and up

But folks seem happy to accept an excuse instead

Nothing 'transparent' going on here whatsoever

The only 'radical' bit is the partisanship

(If you can find ONE SINGLE criticism of Trump on WL's Twitter account, or anywhere else from WL, I will *literally* give you $20)

Radical transparency is a terrible idea, and not just from the point of view of the privacy of you and me, it would prevent any kind of meaningful diplomacy happening in the real world. Can you imagine something like the Good Friday agreement, or the recent Colombian peace deal happening if all the negotiations had been out in the open the whole time? The chances of a middle east agreement are remote enough as it is right now, imagine how much worse it would be if each side let it be known what they really thought of everyone else (not like they're holding back, but no doubt it's even worse than that). It might be possible to have in some kind of idealised utopia (but even then I'd have my doubts), but seeing as we don't live in a utopia...

  On 1/13/2017 at 1:21 PM, mammalsolidarity said:

I don't wanna sound obnoxious- but the argument you're making on their behalf IS the same argument governments and other powerful interests make against the "radical transparency" Wikileaks and others are agitating for.

Not to come across as the WikiLeaks defence force around here, but I do not think it is the same argument. If there is information pertaining to WikiLeaks showing that they have been compromised, by all means it should be made public. I don't think their point was that everybody has to be transparent all of the time, but more that those in power should be held accountable. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if WikiLeaks was shut down, be it by their own wrong doing or by somebody else, it is pretty amazing that they were able to keep going as long as they did...

Edited January 13, 2017 by kloffy

  On 1/13/2017 at 1:24 PM, caze said:

good, "radical transparency" is a terrible idea. what about privacy?

The issue of privacy was addressed in the AMA, specifically with regard to surveillance and the mindset of "If I have nothing to hide, then I have nothing to fear".

 

  _JulianAssange said:

It’s a statement, really. An extremely irritating statement. It’s so 21st century, so Generation Z, so millennial. It’s not about you. It’s not about whether you have something to hide. It’s about whether society can function and what sort of society it is. The key actors in society who influence its political process: publishers, journalists, dissidents, MPs, civil society foundations, if they can’t operate then you have an increasingly authoritarian and conformist society. Do not think that this will not affect you. Even if you think that you are of absolutely no interest, the result this attitude is that you have to suffer the consequences of the society your apathetic conformism helps to produce.

You’re not an island. When you don’t protect your own communications, it’s not just about you. You’re not communicating with yourself, you’re communicating with other people. You’re exposing all of those other people. If you assess that they’re not at risk, are you sure your assessment is correct? Are you sure they’re not at risk going into the future? Perhaps the biggest problem with mass surveillance is that the knowledge of mass surveillance. Fear about it produces intense conformity, so people start censoring their own conversations and eventually they start censoring their own thoughts.

I don't see any indication that Julian is against privacy.

I see plenty of indication that he is against privacy (or simply doesn't give a shit about it), like releasing all of Podestas emails without any attempt to curate or redact personal information irrelevant to the public interest (which lead to idiots getting all worked up about Pizzagate and spirit cooking), and it didn't just affect Podesta's privacy, but anyone he communicated with as well (including names, addresses, emails, phone numbers), it lead to a deranged asshole firing off shots in a pizza restaurant. In other leaks they have published credit card, social security and passport numbers as well.

 

Assange's attempts to justify his actions are frankly pathetic.

 

It's not that there aren't real problems that need to be dealt with re government transparency, surveillance, etc. It's just that Wikileaks and Assange in particular have lost all credibility in honestly tackling them.

  On 1/13/2017 at 1:39 PM, kloffy said:

 

  On 1/13/2017 at 1:21 PM, mammalsolidarity said:

I don't wanna sound obnoxious- but the argument you're making on their behalf IS the same argument governments and other powerful interests make against the "radical transparency" Wikileaks and others are agitating for.

Not to come across as the WikiLeaks defence force around here, but I do not think it is the same argument. If there is information pertaining to WikiLeaks showing that they have been compromised, by all means it should be made public. I don't think their point was that everybody has to be transparent all of the time, but more that those in power should be held accountable. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if WikiLeaks was shut down, be it by their own wrong doing or by somebody else, it is pretty amazing that they were able to keep going as long as they did...

 

Fair enough Kloffy. I think it really is essentially the same argument- if you think we're not quite on the up and up, just trust us. But I understand that governments have a lot more power and do more violence than WL, so the kind and scale of the issues surrounding the arguments are different. 

  On 1/13/2017 at 2:00 PM, mammalsolidarity said:

Fair enough Kloffy. I think it really is essentially the same argument- if you think we're not quite on the up and up, just trust us. But I understand that governments have a lot more power and do more violence than WL, so the kind and scale of the issues surrounding the arguments are different.

Yeah, I think that is kind of the crucial point. The amount of public scrutiny should be proportional to the power that the respective individuals/organisations wield. Whether WikiLeaks has always lived up to that ideal, I am not sure.

  On 1/13/2017 at 1:13 AM, Deer said:

One of the most wanted man in the world walks into the embassy of a Russian allied and is offered protection, in return he has to give the keys to Wikileaks to Russian intelligence 

 

That's far-fetched, Ecuador is not so much of a Russian ally (unlike, say, Venezuela) and the Russian embassy is in 30-35 mins of walking, Embassy of Venezuela is in 15 mins.

 

OK, let's say he didn't want to make it obvious. I don't see clear reasons for Assange to assist Russian intelligence. There's no "sweet asylum deal" on the horizon and never was - how could it be done technically? If he secretly took a stance politically, well, that's another one of his "unethical" decisions.

 

As for compomised Wikileaks - again there's no clear evidence aside from confirmation bias, just like in the public part of the CIA and co. report on Russian hacking.