Has Assange and Wikileaks been compromised ?

  On 1/13/2017 at 2:06 PM, kloffy said:

 

  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.

 

It is crucial. Improperly scaling issues may be a central problem of our day. I'm worried folks are still putting WL in a category appropriate for disconnected/nationless actors. But if they are coordinating, or being particularly useful, for nations whose governments are capable of immense damage, then we must re-categorize them, and subject them to higher levels of scrutiny. 

crazy how many people are suddenly cryptography experts after this assange thing. the hashes dont match!! the mainframe has been hacked!!

  On 1/13/2017 at 4:22 PM, span said:

crazy how many people are suddenly cryptography experts after this assange thing. the hashes dont match!! the mainframe has been hacked!!

Do you know what "the hashes don't match" means?

Or are you just tired of hearing people say it?

he smoked the hashes and doesn't care

The thing about whistleblowers is that it's a neat trick, but you can only do it for real one time.

After that, you are compromised by whoever is sheltering you and any leaks you give after that will likely not be part of the same agenda that got you started. Snowden is in Russia for a reason, Assange is helping them for a reason, etc. The intelligence community called his bluff by revealing his sources were from Russia after he asked them not to reveal his sources. So much for transparency...

  On 1/13/2017 at 2:50 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

Watch his mouth closely and keep in mind that real-time-motion-control can't yet simulate the way our mouth naturally forms language

  On 1/13/2017 at 2:54 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Here's roughly where that technology is atm:

 

if you think that looks remotely similar you need to check your eyes - can't imagine who would fund that kind of operation anyway and for what purpose?

  On 1/14/2017 at 4:38 AM, andihow said:

 

  On 1/13/2017 at 2:50 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

Watch his mouth closely and keep in mind that real-time-motion-control can't yet simulate the way our mouth naturally forms language

 

  On 1/13/2017 at 2:54 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Here's roughly where that technology is atm:

 

 

if you think that looks remotely similar you need to check your eyes - can't imagine who would fund that kind of operation anyway and for what purpose?

 

manipulation, disinformation.. another layer of control perhaps.. of some people who admire wikileaks but also it's a way to add to the narrative... idk.  not saying i buy it.. 

if assange is dead or compromised.. certainly possible.  i read about he hashes not matching in the long reddit thread which had some internet wizards in it.. computer security peoples etc.. it's not all fresh in my mind and even when it was it took a bit for my 2+2=4 to compute what it meant. 

i dont care where that technology is at publicly with these startups, governments have that same technology at a way more advanced level. not saying much of anything one way or another, just felt it might be relevant...i certainly wouldn't consider video reliable with that kind of technology around. 

if it comes from reddit, it must be tru

* grabs pizza from the basement *

  On 1/14/2017 at 8:57 AM, goDel said:

if it comes from reddit, it must be tru

 

* grabs pizza from the basement *

Or:

If it comes from Reddit, it must be false.

*bites own hand off*

Holy false equivalency.

  On 1/14/2017 at 7:50 PM, chenGOD said:

Holy false equivalency.

He was implying "don't believe things from Reddit"

I was just satirizing the crudeness of that logic

  On 1/14/2017 at 8:24 PM, goDel said:

  On 1/14/2017 at 7:51 AM, orangebattery said:

i dont care where that technology is at publicly with these startups, governments have that same technology at a way more advanced level. not saying much of anything one way or another, just felt it might be relevant...i certainly wouldn't consider video reliable with that kind of technology around. 

Why would the government have more advanced versions of that software? I wouldn't be surprised if the government stuff was actually far shittier. When it comes to software the government tends not to have the best minds in the business working for them. They can throw lots of money at things in certain situations, but that's no guarantee of anything.

  On 1/14/2017 at 8:23 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/14/2017 at 7:50 PM, chenGOD said:

Holy false equivalency.

He was implying "don't believe things from Reddit"

 

I was just satirizing the crudeness of that logic

That's what you got from that? You need to check your heuristics, never mind your axioms, bro.

  On 1/14/2017 at 8:42 PM, caze said:

 

  On 1/14/2017 at 7:51 AM, orangebattery said:

i dont care where that technology is at publicly with these startups, governments have that same technology at a way more advanced level. not saying much of anything one way or another, just felt it might be relevant...i certainly wouldn't consider video reliable with that kind of technology around. 

 

Why would the government have more advanced versions of that software? 

Clearly you haven't seen The X-files

  On 1/15/2017 at 4:27 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 1/14/2017 at 8:23 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/14/2017 at 7:50 PM, chenGOD said:

Holy false equivalency.

He was implying "don't believe things from Reddit"

I was just satirizing the crudeness of that logic

That's what you got from that? You need to check your heuristics, never mind your axioms, bro.

It's LimpyLogic

Sure, then can someone patiently explain to me what the phrase "if it came from Reddit, it must be true" means?

Does it mean "I read/watched/etc the thing, and here is precisely where it goes wrong..."

Or does it mean "here is a general, dismissive remark about something I dislike."

Or something else?

(Please help correct my #LimpyLogic)

To say that someone shouldnt take everything that is posted at reddit at face value, is not the same as saying that everything posted at reddit is bullshit. I implied the first. You -sarcasticly?-read the second. Logic?

  On 1/15/2017 at 9:17 AM, goDel said:

To say that someone shouldnt take everything that is posted at reddit at face value, is not the same as saying that everything posted at reddit is bullshit. I implied the first. You -sarcasticly?-read the second. Logic?

Sorry, I didn't realize your sarcastic comment was driven by such very noble intentions. My bad.

Due to my autism and bad logic, I thought that you were making a broad dismissal of Reddit in order to mock the people entertaining certain ideas and paint them as gullible.

*copy paste pizzagate arguments*

Edit: the irony of the pizzagate thread not showing up in the similar topics section...is painful. Especially when topics about music are advertised. Cheap algorithmz. :-p

  On 1/15/2017 at 9:38 AM, goDel said:

*copy paste pizzagate arguments*

 

 

I don't know what this means

(And I don't have the energy to read the entire pizzagate looking for what you're referencing)

But I'm sure you'll call me an idiot for not knowing what it means

But just in case you're making recourse to reputation

In order to win a logic dispute

Then...

Jesus christ. Get lost with your winning disputes thing. I just think it's the pizzagate thing all over again. That's opinion. Not fact. I'm not interested in disputes (or winning them). Feel free to disagree, or whatever you want to get out of this.

Reputation? Wtf...is that what you're concerned about? This is watmm. Not the UN.

If you wanna basically call me an idiot (e.g. #LimpyLogic)

Then yeah there's a logic dispute

Your solution is basically "agree to disagree (P.S. hey everybody, this guy's a fucking moron!)"