[thisnotmyacc]

I'd sum this article up as:

This isn't news because we've known for ages and ages that governments do evil things, known for ages. None of the evils listed are new or that interesting. Nothing to see here.

To me, that is like saying, "come on, it's murder. We've had murder since Cain killed Abel. Wikileaks attempt to expose such an ancient crime isn't news. Now look what Kanye said..."

[drewrv]

There is a huge difference between a hacker being able to read your encrypted messages, vs a hacker being able to read your encrypted messages if they have malware on your phone.

Conflating the two is dangerous, people will stop using Signal if they think it's insecure. She's right to call out Wikileaks for lying about this stuff, and at no point in the article does she imply the governments actions are acceptable either.

[woodandsteel]

So you are saying that it was ok for Wikileaks to misrepresent the material it was releasing because the mainstream media has been saying for years that the government is spying on us.

Huh?

[thisnotmyacc]

So this tweet here: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/839105996429668352 this 141 characters is misleading? Here's the whole tweet just so we can be clear:

> CIA hacker malware a threat to journalists: infests iPhone, Android bypassing Signal, Confide encryption https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/#PRESS

If the argument is this tweet is misleading, this 14 words of content, a link and a hashtag. If that requires a 5,000+ character response to show how, I'm cool with that argument. I really am. I can see how it is misleading.

Equally, if you can read into those 14 words something misleading, I think a non-misleading interpretation is equally valid. In which case, the argument "the 14 words set the wrong agenda it's no big deal" is a little less compelling, and reads exactly like what I wrote. But what do I know? We are all free to disagree.