Dump question: but why are Wikileaks and the Russians so desperate to elect Trump?

[blastula]

Wikileaks doesn't verify the information nor filter it in any responsible way. That's my problem with them. They release a bunch of shit that they have no moral right to release. The people who don't like the NSA spying on everyone should also have a problem with Wikileaks invading everyone's privacy.

 

[Elixir]

Wikileaks doesn't verify the information nor filter it in any responsible way. That's my problem with them. They release a bunch of shit that they have no moral right to release. The people who don't like the NSA spying on everyone should also have a problem with Wikileaks invading everyone's privacy.

AFAICS that's exactly right.

 

[ksen]

lol

 

[DrZoidberg]

All Wikileaks does is establish that the information is genuine.

How? Uncle Vlad sends them a bunch of emails, then what? Do they do their own hack to verify that what Uncle Vlad sent them is verbatim accurate?

I have no idea. It's probably secret. But, I'm a programmer. If I'd try to verify that they're genuine I'd look for electronic trails. There's also pure detective work. I'm sure a lot of the information contains stuff that was secret at the time, and is now common knowledge. That can be used to infer that the rest is also accurate.

- - - Updated - - -

Wikileaks doesn't verify the information nor filter it in any responsible way. That's my problem with them. They release a bunch of shit that they have no moral right to release. The people who don't like the NSA spying on everyone should also have a problem with Wikileaks invading everyone's privacy.

So who do you think should watch the watchers?

 

[Jayjay]

I wonder, how critical is Assange to the functioning of Wikileaks? If Assange were to, say, stumble in a shower and accidentally ingest polonium, would the Wikileaks fall apart, or are there people who would keep it working regardless?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I wonder, how critical is Assange to the functioning of Wikileaks? If Assange were to, say, stumble in a shower and accidentally ingest polonium, would the Wikileaks fall apart, or are there people who would keep it working regardless?

There was a documentary a while back about the drama in Wikileaks. Wikileaks was started by Julian Assange and Daniel Domsheit-Berg. They've now split up and Daniel started the site "whistleblower". Never heard of it? That explains what Wikileaks unique selling point is. Think what you will of Assange, he is a genius at getting attention and PR. But he is a tyrant, and he runs that organisation like a dictator. There's zero democracy within the organisation and zero transperency. Assange is a god in his own little kingdom. If Assange disappears Wikileaks will go tits up. He's built the organisation to be totally dependent on him. Which is kind of funny, considering Wikileaks is supposed to be the guardians of transparency. But he is good at what he does. So he can't be all bad.

There is other organisations who does the same thing, like Whistleblower. So I guess they'll just take over when Wikileaks goes away. Which I think they inevitably will

 

[Shadowy Man]

Putin must be thinking that if Trump can be so easily manipulated by Billy Bush, as Melania says, then just imagine what he (Putin) could do.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Wikileaks doesn't verify the information nor filter it in any responsible way. That's my problem with them. They release a bunch of shit that they have no moral right to release. The people who don't like the NSA spying on everyone should also have a problem with Wikileaks invading everyone's privacy.

Wait, what? They're like the EXACT OPPOSITE of the NSA in almost every way.

Consider:

NSA
- Collects information from everyone without their permission
- Conceals the fact that they collect that information
- Conceals the information they collect and from whom they collected it
- Reveals what is collected only when forced to do so (which is extremely rare)
- Distributes collected information to government agencies, usually without proper judicial review


Wikileaks
- Is GIVEN information by anonymous sources
- Openly announces that they are given that information
- Reveals the information publicly as well as from whom the information originally came from
- Conceals what is collected only when forced to do so (which is extremely rare)
- Distributes collected information to anyone who visits their website in accordance with the 1st amendment


You can take a moral issue with the leakers violating people's trust, or with the people who go to Wikileaks' website and download those documents in the first place. But receiving them and publishing them is no moral failure of Assange; the only thing he's done is create a convenient platform through which people who for reasons of their own WANT to leak other people's secrets can do so in a very public and accessible way. Inasmuch as this makes the world safe for whistleblowers and creates room for good men to speak up on the hidden evils of powerful people, this is a good thing. Inasmuch as it allows for Clinton H8ers to hyperventillate about her emails, it's just annoying and distracting.

Inasmuch as people like Hilary Clinton cannot be trusted with absolute power and the threat of having their private communications leaked to the public just MIGHT keep them a little more honest, it's also an essential service for democracy.

 

[skepticalbip]

I see a rather telling side of human nature here - it is only who's ox is being gored that makes something "good" or "bad".

Republicans were outraged at Snowden's leaks and thought any punishment of him would be justified while Democrats thought he was a hero.

Democrats are outraged at the Wikilink leaks that show what HRC thought and did considering Assange despicable while Republicans think he is a hero.

Personally I think anyone who lets the American (and world) public in on what is going on in government is doing the world a favor.

 

[barbos]

The people who don't like the NSA spying on everyone should also have a problem with Wikileaks invading everyone's privacy.

Not everyone's, just NSA's and politician's

 

[blastula]

The people who don't like the NSA spying on everyone should also have a problem with Wikileaks invading everyone's privacy.

Not everyone's, just NSA's and politician's

Private lives are exposed as WikiLeaks spills its secrets

 

[blastula]

Wikileaks doesn't verify the information nor filter it in any responsible way. That's my problem with them. They release a bunch of shit that they have no moral right to release. The people who don't like the NSA spying on everyone should also have a problem with Wikileaks invading everyone's privacy.

Consider:

NSA
- Collects information from everyone without their permission
- Conceals the fact that they collect that information
- Conceals the information they collect and from whom they collected it
- Reveals what is collected only when forced to do so (which is extremely rare)
- Distributes collected information to government agencies, usually without proper judicial review


Wikileaks
- Is GIVEN information by anonymous sources who may or may not be known to Wikileaks and which sources have stolen that information illegally without anyone's permission, and which information includes both private information of both government officials and vulnerable private citizens, and it's not even always morally justified to steal a government's private communications and documents, nor would total transparency be an effective way to for any organization to operate
- Openly announces that they are given that information, but unknown whether it selectively releases information they are given
- Reveals the information publicly as well as from whom the information originally came from and it would be good for consumers of the information to know the source of the information, but please try not to notice that this would contradict the previous "anonymous sources" point above
- Conceals what is collected only when forced to do so (which is extremely rare)
Nobody knows whether it conceals anything (because Wikileaks is itself not totally transparent nor does it answer to anybody but itself, we would have to wait for someone to leak Wikileaks private documents to know how they actually operate)
- Distributes collected information to anyone who visits their website in accordance with the 1st amendment. But so what? so does most any media organization.

FIFY

 

[Harry Bosch]

Consider:

NSA
- Collects information from everyone without their permission
- Conceals the fact that they collect that information
- Conceals the information they collect and from whom they collected it
- Reveals what is collected only when forced to do so (which is extremely rare)
- Distributes collected information to government agencies, usually without proper judicial review


Wikileaks
- Is GIVEN information by anonymous sources who may or may not be known to Wikileaks and which sources have stolen that information illegally without anyone's permission, and which information includes both private information of both government officials and vulnerable private citizens, and it's not even always morally justified to steal a government's private communications and documents, nor would total transparency be an effective way to for any organization to operate
- Openly announces that they are given that information, but unknown whether it selectively releases information they are given
- Reveals the information publicly as well as from whom the information originally came from and it would be good for consumers of the information to know the source of the information, but please try not to notice that this would contradict the previous "anonymous sources" point above
- Conceals what is collected only when forced to do so (which is extremely rare)
Nobody knows whether it conceals anything (because Wikileaks is itself not totally transparent, we will have to wait for someone to leak Wikileaks private documents to know how they actually operate)
- Distributes collected information to anyone who visits their website in accordance with the 1st amendment. But so what? so does most any media organization.

FIFY

Sorry, but Wikiputinleaks starts leaking some republican information maybe they'll get some respect. But as far as I'm concerned, they are a tool of the Alt-right. If Trump gets elected (and this appears to be a long shot) it will be due to Wikiputinleaks.