[windowshopping]

Assange is a hero? Last I checked he was working with Russia to support the Trump campaign.

Used to respect him a lot, lost all my respect for him and WikiLeaks when he got involved in trying to influence elections. That was not that site's mandate.

[undseg]

Can you elaborate on that? Provide sources etc. Genuinely curious

[jumelles]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/26/assange-slams-inc...

"Assange also accused the Clinton campaign of stoking "a kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria" about Russia's alleged role in the DNC hacking and Moscow's purported links to the Trump campaign."

Meanwhile a recent federal indictment has accused Russia of doing exactly that: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/13/rosenstein-says-1...

The indictment is here: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

More info here: https://www.2016activemeasures.org/#involved

[_up]

Everyone can be accused. That in itself doesn't mean anything. Also, Ex FBI Director Comney testified that the FBI didn't get access to the DNC server. Instead, the DNC hired itself people to verify their claim that they were hacked. How can they be serious if they aren't even trying to secure the main evidence? It is also pretty clear that they are not on Trumps side by announcing this directly before the summit.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?425087-1/fbi-director-investig...

[18pfsmt]

This is a site populated by technical people, so please don't characterize technical security audits so simplistically ("what about the server" is a complete red herring).

There were 140 servers, not "the server." Regardless, the interesting data was found in the network gear of the data center that housed the servers (i.e. meta data/ connectivity logs). Trump was given the choice as to when the latest indictments were announced.

[_up]

I don't know why you seem to be so triggered. I only wanted to discuss an alternate viewpoint. Science is about asking questions not accepting only studies that validate your own viewpoint.

I didn't know that there were 140 servers involved. Interesting. So did Comney lie and the FBI actually did get access to everything, including the physical Hardware. The thing is even if you have found proof that Russian Spies got access to the system it only implicates spying not publishing. The leak could still have come from someone inside the DNC. So to examine everything is essential. Also usually Police at least try to look impartial and not only look at evidence that supports their desired outcome. Looking only at the network gear like you said is the opposite of that.

[resters]

It's not really accurate to say he was trying to influence elections. His goal is to publish verifiable documents that bring transparency to important political issues. He did not take sides whatsoever in the 2016 election, and obviously would have loved to publish information about Trump if any had been leaked to WL.

[jumelles]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/wikileaks-fue...

WikiLeaks promoted false conspiracy theories.

[resters]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that WL promoted those theories.

Clearly if you watch the full statement Assange makes, he's simply establishing a universe of possible sources of the leaks. Statistically, a disgruntled employee is significantly more likely to attempt sabotage than many/most of the other explanations being floated at the time.

Also, FWIW anyone can weaponize a system like Wikileaks, and we should reasonably expect that to be a major source of the leaked data. But keeping in mind that WL is something that can be weaponized, there are many different attacks that can be delivered through it.

[bootlooped]

> and obviously would have loved to publish information about Trump if any had been leaked to WL.

I don't think that's clear, since they were in seemingly friendly contact with Donald Trump Jr and Roger Stone. When caught, Assange claimed they were only pretending to be friendly with them. If Wikileaks has no credibility, the explanation is unbelievable, if the explanation is believable it means they are willing to lie and deceive to achieve their goals, which in turn loses them credibility.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/roger-s...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/assange...

[resters]

Just as any journalist might spend hours hanging out with a source, developing sympathy and rapport, WL has to use some of the same strategies.

It's a tactic used by detectives, journalists, psychotherapists, etc. It is appropriate in some fields and is part of the professional standard and is not a reflection on credibility.

I do not think we have to look far to assess WL's credibility. When is the last time that significant source material has been provided to some other, competing transparency organization? WL is the market leader and in spite of having been under attack for years has not been left in the dust of some other competitor. In that sense WL has tremendous credibility.

When is the last time someone has leaked a trove of data to the NYTimes after WL sat on it for months waiting for the perfect moment to deploy it? This simply hasn't happened.

All it would take would be one big story where the leakers publicized that Assange said no to the story or that he sat on the information. I think it's quite obvious that Assange actually would publish any significant story at the earliest opportunity.

Snowden chose not to go to WikiLeaks for his own personal reasons and because he wanted to be extra cautious about how aggressively the information was disclosed (to protect national security). Wikileaks is specifically not willing to heavily editorialize the leaked information (by omission or actively) because doing so would create doubt about why he suppressed information, and such doubt would actually harm WL's credibility.

Something like WL can easily be weaponized by state actors, disgruntled employees, estranged partners, etc. Because of that, the decision not to suppress any significant stories is crucial. WL won't publish paraphrased rumors, it publishes the actual source material so that there is no need to make inferences or imagine what was kept back.

It's ironic if not a bit absurd that Assange was asking Don Junior to turn over damaging information about his own father and that his remarks are used as evidence that he wanted Trump to win the election.

On a related but tangential note, it's remarkable to me that nobody has leaked Trump's tax returns yet. I'm also surprised nobody has posted a bounty on Ethereum for the first person to send the tax returns to Wikileaks and publish the decryption key and checksum in a public ledger.

One other thing that I'll mention is that I think that people who like one of the two major parties are much more likely to perceive someone else's behavior as being motivated by partisan loyalty.

[bootlooped]

> When is the last time that significant source material has been provided to some other, competing transparency organization?

The Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers were both released to the ICIJ. I don't think you would consider them a transparency organization though.

Considering only a "transparency organization" as Wikileaks competition is wrong though I think. Wikileaks' competitors are conventional producers of journalism, they just have different approaches to how the information will be presented.