Wikileaks positive force or negative?

[mirage62 0]

Has Wikileaks been a positive point in this election cycle or a negative? The current bias of the media is so apparent it has made me wonder. Wikileaks "steals" information - a journalist has a unnamed (and protected) source. The country seems to be divided into two camps. Trump or Hillary no matter what they have done or said ...... But the traditional media didn't bring use half the information that Wikileaks has. I UNDERSTAND that if you are a Hillary supporter you see it as unfair - and well it may be. But without Wikileaks we would be less informed.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[rushmc 23]

mirage62

Has Wikileaks been a positive point in this election cycle or a negative? The current bias of the media is so apparent it has made me wonder. Wikileaks "steals" information - a journalist has a unnamed (and protected) source. The country seems to be divided into two camps. Trump or Hillary no matter what they have done or said ...... But the traditional media didn't bring use half the information that Wikileaks has. I UNDERSTAND that if you are a Hillary supporter you see it as unfair - and well it may be. But without Wikileaks we would be less informed.

Today I see it as a positive. Not because of the election but because it is providing documentation exposing what many of us already suspected. And that is the system is corrupt!!!!.

What bothers me the worst is the use of government departments to harass and ruin peoples lives. The IRS targeting, the DOJ interfering in FBI investigations for purely political motives. Hillary using the State Dept to het herself rich.


We now know (not even thanks to Wikileaks) that the FBI has been investigating the Clinton Corruption Foundation for over a year!!!! (Sorry Bill, congress has not even been involved) They used their influence to give contracts after the Haiti disaster to friends of Bill and Hillary's because of large Foundation donations!


I could write about her for hours!.

The biggest thing we have learned is that the private server, which we now know with out any doubt, had emails that contained information classified higher than top secret, were on Hillary's server. And investigators are now telling us they have 99% confidence that her server was hacked by 5 to 9 intelligence services (not friends of the US). We now know as fact the Obama did know of this server long before he admitted to it. And we can have reasonable expectations that these 5 to 9 bad actors would or could use information found on her server to black mail her or worse should she become president! Hillary is a fucking disaster!!!!!! It is hard to understand how anyone can vote for her.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

BTW
I will now be attacked as a Trump supporter. Since the info I posted above is beyond being questionable. It is Trump and I Hillary supporters will go after.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

the info I posted above is beyond being questionable

Fucking priceless.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

the info I posted above is beyond being questionable

Fucking priceless.

You are right.

the info on her is fucking past priceless.

You can not refute ANY of it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Another fact that can not be questioned.

Hillary has so little character she will cheat for a debate by accepting the questions ahead of time from some one as despicable as her. Donna Brazil. Who then tried to lie and state that her email was altered by someone. A claim that was debunked.

They are all just peas in a pod.

And those like you water the plants......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Like you said, it is beyond questionable.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Like you said, it is beyond questionable.

Glad you are coming around.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

[wmw999 2,447]

I'll reply to the OP. As of right now, I think it's still a net positive. Not because of confirmation bias ("I knew they wuz doin' wrong and they confirmed it!"), but because they appear to have an independent agenda to election manipulation.

But as soon as they decide to start manipulating shit just because they have the power to (which nearly every organism or organization with power eventually does), the it passes to bad. And it'll get there.

Remember when you could read interesting commentary on news websites in the comments sections of stories?

its going to be a moving target. And with expanding population and rapidly-changing technology, it's going to move faster and faster.

But it's mostly a problem for the digital natives. We're getting old enough to become increasingly irrelevant. I think I'm glad of that. A small influence in a subset of world seems a whole lot better to me now than making a big shit splash on the Internet.

And thanks for a great question.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

wmw999

I'll reply to the OP. As of right now, I think it's still a net positive. Not because of confirmation bias, but because they appear to have an independent agenda to election manipulation.

But as soon as they decide to start manipulating shit just because they have the power to (which nearly every organism or organization with power eventually does), the it passes to bad. And it'll get there.

^^
listen to the smart woman (and the lesson of the 2nd paragraph as it applies to today's media, ALL the media including the informal sites)

I'm less patient with those that love when it exposes the 'other' candidate but then get outraged when it's 'their' candidate

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,447]

Thanks.
BTW, most of here on dz.com are old enough to remember the net before it was "ruined by trolls." Being old, I even remember the "Make Money Fast" email that might have been the first serious newsgroup spam.

Think about the impact of one asshole. Then add in all the other assholes.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[tigra 0]

<<>>

OMG- You're quoting a Goldie Hawn movie from the 60s.

Awesome.

[rehmwa 2]

wmw999

Think about the impact of one asshole. Then add in all the other assholes.

no, I don't think I'll be doing that. It's hard enough thinking about two assholes on the ballot Tuesday. (sigh.....the SC response to this quote is SO predictable)


I'm very concerned that someone is actually going to win the election.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Phil1111 1,149]

wmw999

Thanks.
BTW, most of here on dz.com are old enough to remember the net before it was "ruined by trolls." Being old, I even remember the "Make Money Fast" email that might have been the first serious newsgroup spam.

Think about the impact of one asshole. Then add in all the other assholes.

Wendy P.

Before the internet a person could walk around interacting with several people each day and every day or every few days meet a asshole. Now you can interact with a couple every hour online.

Two hundred years ago you might have to ride a horse for a day and spend a week to interact with one asshole....mmmm are they multiplying or is it just technology?

Wikileaks, positive because it exposes corruption, hypocrisy and duplicity. Hackers can do that as well:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37857658

[yoink 321]

Negative.

As a concept I agree with what they're doing, but they have an agenda and that makes me suspicious. How do we know they're releasing all the information and not releasing only certain portions of it to serve their own ideals?


Quis custodes custodiet, and all that.

[normiss 801]

How do we know which information leaked is accurate or original non-manipulated info?

[yoink 321]

we don't. Again, another reason I don't trust their information.


In theory the idea of a certain level of transparency is a noble one, but the execution will always be open to manipulation if it goes through a third party. (see my response to Rush explaining this concept in another thread...).

The only way to do it would be to give every citizen full access to everyone's data.

[quade 4]

Julian has lost his way.

When he started WikiLeaks his concept was corruption could be limited if those in authority believed that at any moment their private correspondence could be leaked to the world. It was a flawed concept from the get go, but his heart was in the right place.

Over the years and due to his self-exile to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London he's developed a "burn it all down" attitude.

The flaw in his strategy from the get go was not recognizing the most corrupt would simply move their communications to more secure and forward secure methods. What would remain would mostly be softer targets less concerned about day-to-day communications and more concerned with simply getting things done. Yes, it takes time to secure every email a person sends and sometimes it's just not worth it even if it would mean that at some future date it might be a bit embarrassing.

The sad part of this is a data breach of one person can lead to another data breach and so on. A hack of the DNC leads to a hack on Podesta which drags in people who really have no relationship to corruption at all.

This is my beef with WikiLeaks in general; they release massive amounts of un-redacted material which harms completely innocent 3rd parties.

Exposing a corrupt official -- I have no problem with.

Three hacks down the line publishing the names and other personal information of innocent third parties? Nope. That's no longer journalism. It's essentially terrorism.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

normiss

How do we know which information leaked is accurate or original non-manipulated info?

There isn't nor can there ever be.

I posed this question to some other people recently;

Quote

Let’s say I make the claim you sent me an email saying, “Pandas are made of Jello.”
How could you ever prove to a 3rd party you didn’t send that email?

Anybody want to take a swing at that? How could you possibly prove you didn't send a email?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,991]

>Has Wikileaks been a positive point in this election cycle or a negative?

Overall pretty neutral. It's a good function to have (a way to uncover what's going on in the government) and the good that they have done by revealing the inner workings of the government is partially balanced by the bad effects of letting Russia use them for their own ends. Hopefully in the future they'll avoid such entanglements.

>I UNDERSTAND that if you are a Hillary supporter you see it as unfair - and well it
>may be. But without Wikileaks we would be less informed.

In four years it will be used against a Republican and suddenly democrats will support it while republicans call for drone attacks on Wikileaks personnel. That's pretty inevitable.

[quade 4]

billvon

It's a good function to have (a way to uncover what's going on in the government)...

At best though, it can only ever uncover that which was deemed unimportant enough to not be dealt with securely.

A smart, corrupt government would simply require forward secure methods used by all of the inner circle.

It doesn't even have to be hard. OpenPGP and Signal (both freely available) would shut WikiLeaks down if properly used and corruption could remain secret.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[TriGirl 318]

quade

***It's a good function to have (a way to uncover what's going on in the government)...

At best though, it can only ever uncover that which was deemed unimportant enough to not be dealt with securely.



Except when you have someone with secure access who decides to open the windows on the WHOLE damn system, regardless of what all is there and who it could get killed. Taking that info from Snowden and just letting it all out without looking at what they had was reckless. If Assange wanted to maintain his credibility in exposing corruption or bad practices, he would have culled the information and published only what was pertinent.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[quade 4]

TriGirl

******It's a good function to have (a way to uncover what's going on in the government)...

At best though, it can only ever uncover that which was deemed unimportant enough to not be dealt with securely.



Except when you have someone with secure access who decides to open the windows on the WHOLE damn system, regardless of what all is there and who it could get killed. Taking that info from Snowden and just letting it all out without looking at what they had was reckless. If Assange wanted to maintain his credibility in exposing corruption or bad practices, he would have culled the information and published only what was pertinent.

I think you're confusing Snowden with Manning.

The release of the Snowden material was (still is) very carefully curated and heavily redacted by Glenn Greenwald of "The Guardian", now of "The Intercept." As far as I can tell, it has been handled meticulously. Assange/WikiLeaks has zero to do with Snowden material.

I agree the Manning release by WikiLeaks was handled irresponsibly.

That said, the Manning release would not have been possible if the material had not been stored in plain text. Had it been encrypted with forward secure methods, it never would have been able to have been released in readable form.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi Paul,

Quote

in London he's developed a "burn it all down" attitude.

I believe that is commonly known as a 'scorched earth' attitude.

Adolph Hitler had it when the war turned against him.

I see a parallel with Assange. He's trapped but this is how he can get back at anyone; not one concern about the collateral damage IMO.

Jerry Baumchen

[quade 4]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Paul,

Quote

in London he's developed a "burn it all down" attitude.

I believe that is commonly known as a 'scorched earth' attitude.

Another variation is the "some men just want to watch the world burn."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efHCdKb5UWc

I was, however, attempting to quote a recent analysis of Assange by Glenn Greenwald. I might have gotten it wrong, but it was the jist. I'm looking for the conversation.

Edited to add

Found it.
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-too-far-a-conversation-with-naomi-klein/

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver