*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[wufwugy]

Soo, now that Trump admitted that the hack (yes hack, as in a spearfish attack to DNC personnel to access the systems, not an insider leak) was done by Russians, as well as an attempted to hack of the RNC, please spin this for me. Aaand ACTION.

Show me.

Also, is "spin" really what you think I do?

[wufwugy]

I'm pretty sure I found what you're referring to: in the press conference, he says "as far as hacking, I think it was Russian....and many others....hacking..."

This is basically Trump saying that they don't know who did it. Which is what people who know things about how easy and common it is to hide your tracks when hacking say should be expected.

[Savy]

I'm pretty sure I found what you're referring to: in the press conference, he says "as far as hacking, I think it was Russian....and many others....hacking..."

This is basically Trump saying that they don't know who did it. Which is what people who know things about how easy and common it is to hide your tracks when hacking say should be expected.

You realise hiding your tracks whilst hacking is incredibly hard right?

[CoccoBill]

Also, is "spin" really what you think I do?

I'm roughly 66% that it's bona fide rather than intentional.

This is basically Trump saying that they don't know who did it. Which is what people who know things about how easy and common it is to hide your tracks when hacking say should be expected.

It's him saying he's not disputing the reports by the intelligence community, which state that Russia was behind them. He also said that Russia is not the only country launching various attacks towards the US, which is of course true.

As ImSavy said, hiding your tracks, especially from someone with the resources of a nation state, is definitely not easy. I'm one of the people who know things about it.

[Jack Sawyer]

I have to assume it’s this part

As ImSavy said, hiding your tracks, especially from someone with the resources of a nation state, is definitely not easy. I’m one of the people who know things about it.

[wufwugy]

Explain.

[CoccoBill]

Which part?

[Jack Sawyer]

Sometimes, karma manifests itself as a wet bitch allegedly hahahaha

[CoccoBill]

Ok, it's what I get paid for.

[Poopadoop]

Ok, it's what I get paid for.

I think he was looking for a more technical explanation. How do you go about tracing a hacker?

[CoccoBill]

I think he was looking for a more technical explanation. How do you go about tracing a hacker?

I'm looking for description on what precautions the Russian government has to not employ in order for the Russian government to be pinpointed as the hacker. From everything I've read, avoiding tracking during hacking involves well understood technical protocols, and that when people get caught hacking it is typically because they made some really dumb mistakes.

As you may understand, this is a wildly broad subject, kind of like asking what precautions do bank robbers have to not employ in order to get caught. I don't have data on how the attack was done on a technical level, but I can make a fairly conceivable assumption based on how previous similar hacks have happened, on which we do have more detailed info.

Everything you do on the net creates a trace of information, traffic and connection logs, packet headers, addresses, digital fingerprints. In this case the breach was apparently done using a spearfishing attack, a targeted and customized attack on the DNC personnel. It could have been for example an email sent to a DNC employee, seemingly coming from a colleague or a trusted contact containing a link or an attachment, that the person is tempted to open. I don't mean a nigerian letter or a viagra ad, possibly a legitimate document that would be perfectly expected to be coming from that person, with an injected malware. This malware, most likely custom made for this purpose and employing possibly unknown 0-day vulnerabilities would infect the machine and give the attackers access to everywhere the target had access.

This attack would leave trace evidence in the ISP traffic logs, DNC firewalls, routers, mail gateways and possible intrusion detection systems, on their mail server, on the target's workstation, DNS servers and other systems in the network. The malware code very often includes data that can point to the direction of the attacker, such as compiling timestamps, patterns, etc. Even if the code is custom, parts of it is often reused, and can give hints to who wrote it. Any sane attacker of course tries to cover their tracks and uses several proxies/hops in various countries for any connections to the target systems, but doing all of it without leaving any trackable evidence is tedious and complicated. Hackers are human, they make mistakes.

I'm curious why it seems so hard to find so many hackers except for when the people who hate Trump want to.

It is hard, and it takes a lot of resources, which are better used for investigating high-level acts of espionage rather than some kid stealing nudies from celebrity iphones.

[wufwugy]

I'm looking for description on what precautions the Russian government has to not employ in order for the Russian government to be pinpointed as the hacker. From everything I've read, avoiding tracking during hacking involves well understood technical protocols, and that when people get caught hacking it is typically because they made some really dumb mistakes.

I'm curious why it seems so hard to find so many hackers except for when the people who hate Trump want to.

[Savy]

I'm curious why it seems so hard to find so many hackers except for when the people who hate Trump want to.

Which examples of hackers are you talking about that don't get caught?

You can make it a pain to find out who did it. So varying degrees of expertise are needed to the point where it very quickly becomes not worth it to find out who did it but that's very different. Like downloading a film illegally you can no doubt make it too much effort to find out it was you and no one really cares all that much. Take some significant money out of banks and I imagine you'd have a hard time getting away with it otherwise why wouldn't people do it?

[wufwugy]

Which examples of hackers are you talking about that don't get caught?

I just google around and see that it seems the conventional wisdom is that there are hackers that utilize standard technical protocols, and the ones that get caught typically end up doing something like boasting on social media.

[Savy]

I just google around and see that it seems the conventional wisdom is that there are hackers that utilize standard technical protocols, and the ones that get caught typically end up doing something like boasting on social media.

Very much depends on what they are doing. It is very easy to make it a pain to track you to the point places like local police have no chance so I imagine that most people who get in shit tor stuff do give themselves away but that doesn't back up what you said.

It is best to think of it as hiding. You can hide really well but you are still always there.

[Poopadoop]

Lol did anyone see the pile of 'documents' Trump brought to his press conference? Just a bunch of unlabeled folders full of apparently blank papers.

Another funny thing was how he brought his own cheering section. I'm thinking 'why is the press cheering for him?'.

Refusing to answer the reporter from CNN was pretty funny too.

The guy is such a farce...no way he lasts four years.

[Jack Sawyer]

I'm looking for description on what precautions the Russian government has to not employ in order for the Russian government to be pinpointed as the hacker. From everything I've read, avoiding tracking during hacking involves well understood technical protocols, and that when people get caught hacking it is typically because they made some really dumb mistakes.

I'm curious why it seems so hard to find so many hackers except for when the people who hate Trump want to.

Itwasfo
und out that stuxnet was nation sponsored by the US and Israel against Iran, and this was in the pre-Troll Doll days.

Individuals looking for people who downloaded their torrents can be hard. A whole nation, with the resources of the NSA and people like Snowden looking for you, you can bet your ass they will find you no matter how hard you cover your tracks and how deep you hide in the darknet

Why do you make the narrative only about his Trumpness?

[wufwugy]

Thanks for the info guys.

Why do you make the narrative only about his Trumpness?

It doesn't have to be, but we've certainly grown weary of it due to all the fake news stories that try to take him down. Like the one that happened a few days ago: pissgate. The media pushed a "story" that they even admitted at the time could be wrong.


On the Russia thing, assuming it is Russia (which it may well be), does this justify the main ideas the media has thrown around? No. They're still wrong that the election was tampered with, they're still wrong that this means something nefarious regarding Putin and Trump, and they're still wrong that the problem is the whistleblower instead of the shady actors revealed by the whistleblower. The real stories about evidence that Russia hacked the DNC are (1) what does this mean about Russia's intentions regarding the Dems/Clinton and the GOP/Trump (this is different than assuming it's nefarious between Putin/Trump), (2) what does this mean regarding the state of state-level cyber security, and (3) wow look at all this horrible shit done by the DNC and Clinton and the media. But no, Fake News set aside pursuit of reason and truth and instead pushed the narrative that would best de-legitimize Trump.

[wufwugy]

Question: I think it is reasonable to assume the Russian government would use proxies and other related tools. Let's say they hack from Secret KGB Headquarters Beneath Putin's House, jumping through proxy in Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Thailand. Is this typically traceable back to Secret KGB Headquarters Beneath Putin's House?

Second Question: When the US government "determines" that a hack came from the Russian state, are they really finding that the source of the hack originated from a known government potential-hacking building or is the origin really just located somewhere within Russia's borders?

[OngBonga]

You guys still using the word "hack" instead of "leak"?

#wikihacks

[JKDS]

Inb4 republicans swiftly impeach trump, so they can have pence.

[wufwugy]

I would lol. I can think of a reason they wouldn't do that (most of them would not be reelected).

[supa]

Inb4 republicans swiftly impeach trump, so they can have pence.

This.

[supa]

I would lol. I can think of a reason they wouldn't do that (most of them would not be reelected).

Untrue. Most of them are untouchable and the Republicans have developed some amazing voter suppression and redistricting skills. Once they have enough dirt on him there won't be too many people that will be able to argue against impeachment.

[Shotglass]

Wow, just wow....hack this and hack that.....standard for the msm and "intelligence" conglomerate. repeat a lie so many times that the american sheeple begin to believe it...ala, the gulf of tonkin incident or/and wmd in Iraq.

Has no one who reads this thread read or watched the interview with Jullian Assange in which he categorically denied any Russian involvement, stating that the hacks were actually leaks from DNC insiders?

sheeze.....smfh

[wufwugy]

Has no one who reads this thread read or watched the interview with Jullian Assange in which he categorically denied any Russian involvement, stating that the hacks were actually leaks from DNC insiders?

I saw it back when he gave the interview. It's worth noting, but Assange doesn't exactly have credibility on this. I like the guy and I love Wikileaks, but we would need third party corroboration when it comes to statements made by Assange. Let me put it this way, if I were him and if it were the Russians, I would say it's not the Russians.

This goes for Guccifer 2.0, who yesterday claimed that he did the hack (IIRC). Okay, cool, but still he doesn't have enough credibility for us to believe him with certainty.

I also recall Obama giving a possible Freudian slip when he called them leaks in a press conference.

Regardless, I don't really have a position on this because it doesn't change anything where they came from. Like I stated earlier, all the claims Fake News is making about how this is bad for Trump are not true regardless of whether or not Russia did it. It's just a smear campaign and obfuscation from their own foul play.

[OngBonga]

Oh hi shotty, glad I'm not the only person who prefers to talk about leaks instead of hacks.

[OngBonga]

I didn't see the Assange interview, I read the blog of one of his friends, former British ambassador Craig Murray. He's "former" because he resigned on principle many years ago. Or he got sacked by the Home Secretary for being a man of principle, whichever way you prefer to look at it. The British government don't like their ambassadors to oppose the use of torture.

Anyway, he is close friends with Assange. It's thanks to Murray that I even give Assange any credit.

[Shotglass]

I didn't see the Assange interview, I read the blog of one of his friends, former British ambassador Craig Murray. He's "former" because he resigned on principle many years ago. Or he got sacked by the Home Secretary for being a man of principle, whichever way you prefer to look at it. The British government don't like their ambassadors to oppose the use of torture.

Anyway, he is close friends with Assange. It's thanks to Murray that I even give Assange any credit.

Yeah, Assange is often just a twatwaffle who has ABSOLUtelY no love for the US gubmint

Hay, Ong...would you mind pm'ing me the url of Murray's blog? Probly makes for a good read

[Poopadoop]

Does Assange have some claim to be a perfectly reliable source of information? I'm just curious as to why I should believe everything he says.

For all we know he's working for someone else who has a vested interest in fucking with our heads. Same goes for this Murray guy.

Face it, we'll never know any of this for sure. All we'll know are the various narratives we hear about, probably none of which are true.

[OngBonga]

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

Third and fourth entires down are posts about Wikileaks.

[OngBonga]

He waffles a lot about Scottish indepedance, which I tend to ignore, but he is Scottish so fair enough!

[OngBonga]

It's a question of who you wish to put your trust in. I might come across as a skeptic, but I'm not that paranoid that I refuse to trust anyone. Now, when it comes to Assange, well who the fuck was he before Wikileaks? What has he done to gain my trust? Fuck all. He could be in this for the fame and money for all I know. But Murray, well this is a man who blew a career in politics. He's not in it for the fame and money, because he's not very famous, and he already had a well paid job with huge prospects. He blew that to expose the British government. He has earned my trust.

If you wish to put your trust in career politicians rather than those who put their neck on the block to expose lies and corruption, that's your call.

Can I be certain that Murray is the real deal? Of course not, I haven't met him. But I prefer to trust him over the British government.

[OngBonga]

Does Assange have some claim to be a perfectly reliable source of information? I'm just curious as to why I should believe everything he says.

Have wikileaks been proven to be wrong yet?

[Poopadoop]

Have wikileaks been proven to be wrong yet?

How would that ever be possible?

[OngBonga]

How would that ever be possible?

Um... I dunno, perhaps by getting successfuly sued?

[Poopadoop]

Um... I dunno, perhaps by getting successfuly sued?

You have to have proof to sue someone. How do you prove leaked docs are false? Because they don't say 'this is real' on them?

[Poopadoop]

Here's a theory (just a theory): Assange is a stooge of a foreign power trying to undermine the West. Could be China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran -they all hate us. His job is to create a whistleblower persona and 'leak' phony docs that make our gov'ts look bad. Our side can't just say 'that's fake' because no-one will believe us and there's no way to prove it anyways.

Again, just a theory. For all I know he could be legit and either way it doesn't change the fact that our rulers are assholes. It's just interesting to ponder who 'wins' when our gov't gets publicly shamed.

And it's not like ambassadors aren't prime targets for espionage. So, how do you know Murray is living hand-to-mouth? 'Cause he says so in his blog?

[OngBonga]

It's worth pointing out that British ambassadors get some serious perks. The one which Craig claims keeps a lot of his former collegaues quiet is that the British Govt pay the provate school fees of their kids. That's quite a perk, if you understand how British politics works. It's very difficult to have a high profile career in politics here if you didn't go to the right school.

Murray has to sell books and give talks to make ends meet.

[supa]

Imo there isn't much question if they were hacks or leaks. There were two intrusions to the DNC servers... an intrusion is a hack yeah? Someone in there that isn't supposed to be?

The question is who the hackers are. If it's at all plausible that it's from an outside country then all avenues of investigation should be explored. I guess that's true even if it came from within the DNC. But whether the intrusions came from inside or outside the DNC they are still hacks.

I don't really think those hacks played a key roll in the election though. I think the Russians played a key roll and definitely meddled with the purpose of getting Trump elected but that was more through using professional trolls on social media than hacking.

[wufwugy]

Trump elected but that was more through using professional trolls on social media than hacking.

Do you have the evidence for this?

[OngBonga]

Imo there isn't much question if they were hacks or leaks. There were two intrusions to the DNC servers... an intrusion is a hack yeah? Someone in there that isn't supposed to be?

I would have thought it was a question of access. Someone who has access to state secrets, and shares them is leaking. Someone who doesn't have access and gains it is hacking. But that's just the way I see it, I didn't get the dictionary out.

[wufwugy]

As per paid shilling, the only one I know about is CTR (Correct the Record). Democrat shills.

If Russian Trump shills exist, they would be on r/The_Donald or /pol/. Go ahead and trust me that is not remotely close to a significant part of The_Donald. Unless you think Russian pleb-wage workers have superior memeology and memetics than the rest of the world.

Never forget that the US mainstream media is the most sophisticated propaganda machine in world history.

[supa]

Do you have the evidence for this?

Originally I saw it on one of those "fake news" shows. Actual Russians saying they were paid for doing this and went into pretty good detail. Evidence is tricky because it's hard to know what to believe anymore. I can try to scrounge some stuff up but it would be on the observer to decide whether or not it's evidence. I'm pretty satisfied with there being a good amount of truth to it.

Really it makes sense knowing the facts we have and how gullible people are on social media. Even if it wasn't russia social media was a huge catalyst in trump winning. Definitely not as big as mainstream media and we can't take away the fact that the dems ran a horrible campaign.

[wufwugy]

Originally I saw it on one of those "fake news" shows. Actual Russians saying they were paid for doing this and went into pretty good detail. Evidence is tricky because it's hard to know what to believe anymore. I can try to scrounge some stuff up but it would be on the observer to decide whether or not it's evidence. I'm pretty satisfied with there being a good amount of truth to it.

Really it makes sense knowing the facts we have and how gullible people are on social media. Even if it wasn't russia social media was a huge catalyst in trump winning. Definitely not as big as mainstream media and we can't take away the fact that the dems ran a horrible campaign.

When they talk about social media shills for Trump, when they talk about all the alt-right stuff, they're basically talking about r/The_Donald, /pol/, and Breitbart (and InfoWars). My experience on those is that the claim is lol. It's all just a bunch of shitposting and the occasional very important news that is being censored everywhere else (like when the Orlando club terrorist attack happened). As for the conspiracy part, there is a decent amount of that (thanks Alex Jones), but it really doesn't go anywhere. People not deeply embedded in the pro-Trump circles tend to not see it.

BTW CTR loves mucking those places up. The_Donald is vastly more popular on reddit than it appears just by going on reddit, but the administrators actively suppress it and CTR does as well. And yet The_Donald still kicks their butts. It's because of the meme magic. Even the most ardent hater of Trump, if he spends a decent amount of time on The_Donald, will soften a lot. Shitposting can be hilariously fun. Plus there's a section of real news people get there that is wholly censored in the mainstream.

[supa]

This is a petty good read although again it's hardly proof.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...6bWtFIv_CPeL-w

[wufwugy]

The real story of the week is that fake intel dossier. In fact, that's one of the biggest stories in years. It's so bad that CNN and others should be in the process of bankruptcy by now. But they're not, you know, because their propaganda is so incredibly strong that most don't know about their lie and most who do view it with cognitive dissonance.

Oh well. Maybe the next time the entire mainstream media runs with a false story about the nation's leader that is shown to be false within hours people will realize they're being had.

[OngBonga]

If you think the life of a whistleblower and bloggist is somehow more profitable than the life of an ambassador, then perhaps I can see where you're coming from.

[Poopadoop]

If you think the life of a whistleblower and bloggist is somehow more profitable than the life of an ambassador, then perhaps I can see where you're coming from.

The life of a spy can be pretty profitable.

[OngBonga]

The life of a spy can be pretty profitable.

Of course, the life of an ambassador is shit in comparison. Travelling the world, all expenses paid, having your kids' private education fees paid for by the govt, juicy pension, not having to worry about jail etc.

I mean I do appreciate your use of the word "spy" here, it didn't go unnoticed. If Murray is a plant, then "spy" is surely the correct word. But if that's what his job is, then he has the problem of fearing for his life or liberty. These are heavy prices to pay. I mean a spy is not a particularly principled person... one who is willing to betray one's nation. If he's that much of a cunt, then why not just keep his job as ambassador and turn a blind eye to the shit the British Govt get up to?

[Poopadoop]

Of course, the life of an ambassador is shit in comparison. Travelling the world, all expenses paid, having your kids' private education fees paid for by the govt, juicy pension, not having to worry about jail etc.

I mean I do appreciate your use of the word "spy" here, it didn't go unnoticed. If Murray is a plant, then "spy" is surely the correct word. But if that's what his job is, then he has the problem of fearing for his life or liberty. These are heavy prices to pay. I mean a spy is not a particularly principled person... one who is willing to betray one's nation. If he's that much of a cunt, then why not just keep his job as ambassador and turn a blind eye to the shit the British Govt get up to?

Ya, I don't really believe he's a spy, I just think whistleblowers should be treated with the same skepticism as other people.

Also, other diplomats have been found guilty of spying. So apparently some thought it was worth it.

And being a whistleblower is arguably as dangerous as being a spy. You're still more-or-less treated like a traitor.

[supa]

I would have thought it was a question of access. Someone who has access to state secrets, and shares them is leaking. Someone who doesn't have access and gains it is hacking. But that's just the way I see it, I didn't get the dictionary out.

I think access is exactly the term in question and from what I understand if it did come from inside the DNC it was done by someone without access. Again, there were two separate "intrusions" implying that someone who was not supposed to be in there was.

[OngBonga]

I think access is exactly the term in question and from what I understand if it did come from inside the DNC it was done by someone without access. Again, there were two separate "intrusions" implying that someone who was not supposed to be in there was.

Well if this is the case, fair enough on your use of the word "hack". Although, it's still worth noting that there remains a distinction between an internal hack and a foreign hack. And it's not merely a question of where the hack came from... it's who's responsible. If I go to Russia and hack the British govt and release compromising material, well that's different to one of Putin's goons doing it. Unless I'm working for Putin, of course. But let's assume I'm doing it from Russia because I feel safer there, and that it's based purely on morality. In this case, Putin is not repsonsible, and has no onus on him to arrest me.

[supa]

The real story of the week is that fake intel dossier. In fact, that's one of the biggest stories in years. It's so bad that CNN and others should be in the process of bankruptcy by now. But they're not, you know, because their propaganda is so incredibly strong that most don't know about their lie and most who do view it with cognitive dissonance.

Oh well. Maybe the next time the entire mainstream media runs with a false story about the nation's leader that is shown to be false within hours people will realize they're being had.

Two questions,

Has the dossier actually been proven to be false? If so I've missed something.

What do you consider real news?

[wufwugy]

Two questions,

Has the dossier actually been proven to be false? If so I've missed something.

What do you consider real news?

The Director of National Intelligence said it was not a document that came from the intelligence community. Also BuzzFeedBen, when breaking the "story" also said "there is serious reason to doubt the allegations." Based on everything that has happened so far, the "story" is almost certainly fake, except it hasn't been "proven" fake since that's really hard to do.

Regarding what news source I think isn't fake, none. Every source has a big bias, even the ones that try hard at neutrality. The best I can come up with is consuming sources that disagree with each other and using my brain to the best of my ability. I tend to ignore tabloids like Huffpaint, Certainly Not News, and The Young Communists.

[supa]

That'd be a helluva lotta fakery.



I don't think it's actually been proven false...more like unable to be substantiated. Kinda dif to prove a negative. IMO, it's really sayin something if the clinton news network won't run with it.

I don't think I'm following you. It's pretty much the only thing CNN's been covering for days. Also, it isn't at all difficult to prove a negative. It either happened or it didn't. As far as I know every intelligence agency in america is currently investigating it so until someone comes back as fake I have a hard time considering it so.

[wufwugy]

Excellent, succinct rundown of the false allegations on Trump:



Buzzfeed owned, CNN owned, the CIA owned, Rick Wilson owned. Owned by whom? The unstoppable tag team of their own bloodlust to de-legitimize Trump at all costs and a 4chan troll.

[wufwugy]

This is some Oedipus Rex level irony. CNN et al. have been hammering on for over a month about all the fake news that originates from places like 4chan, only for 4chan to feed them enough rope that they hang themselves with their own fake news scandal.

[OngBonga]

Also, you use the word "hack" here. Wikileaks doesn't hack. Wikileaks accepts leaks. Whether those leaks were from hacks is another issue, but wikileaks aren't the ones doing the hacking.

[OngBonga]

And being a whistleblower is arguably as dangerous as being a spy. You're still more-or-less treated like a traitor.

By the state, sure. But not by people like me.

Ya, I don't really believe he's a spy, I just think whistleblowers should be treated with the same skepticism as other people.

I don't. Spies and whistleblowers are not in the same league. Spies aren't doing what they do based on their moral compass. Not all whistleblowers do either, so I understand why there should be some skepticism. But to argue that the same skepticism should be applied to whistleblowers as there is at spies, well this is not something I agree with at all.

Also, other diplomats have been found guilty of spying. So apparently some thought it was worth it.

Sure. Of course, it's worth pointing out at this stage that Murray no longer has access to state secrets, and hasn't for a long time. So while it's not out of the question that he was a spy, it's highly unlikely he would still remain one, simply because he wouldn't be a very good one.

So publishing a bunch of leaked/hacked stuff makes you incapable of lying? I didn't realise that.

I'm sorry, where did I say this? Noone is incapable of lying. But, those who do usually get exposed. When it comes to making allegations of the nature that Wikileaks release, well people tend to get sued when they make false claims on this scale. If Wikileaks have been successfully sued, well please show me when.

[Poopadoop]

I don't. Spies and whistleblowers are not in the same league. Spies aren't doing what they do based on their moral compass. Not all whistleblowers do either, so I understand why there should be some skepticism. But to argue that the same skepticism should be applied to whistleblowers as there is at spies, well this is not something I agree with at all.

Of course, it's worth pointing out at this stage that Murray no longer has access to state secrets, and hasn't for a long time. So while it's not out of the question that he was a spy, it's highly unlikely he would still remain one, simply because he wouldn't be a very good one.

A spy can pretend to be a whistleblower, that's my point. (And by 'spy' obviously I'm broadening the definition outside of simply 'passing information' to include other types of espionage).

I'm sorry, where did I say this? Noone is incapable of lying. But, those who do usually get exposed. When it comes to making allegations of the nature that Wikileaks release, well people tend to get sued when they make false claims on this scale. If Wikileaks have been successfully sued, well please show me when.

I already answered this.

Here's a question: How do wikileaks verify what they're publishing is a legitmate document? Shouldn't that be an important part of a whistleblower's agenda?

[OngBonga]

Here's a question: How do wikileaks verify what they're publishing is a legitmate document? Shouldn't that be an important part of a whistleblower's agenda?

This is actually a very good question, one that obviously I can't answer, and one that I have pondered myself. That said, they appear to do a very good job of it.

A spy can pretend to be a whistleblower, that's my point. (And by 'spy' obviously I'm broadening the definition outside of simply 'passing information' to include other types of espionage).

Well, you're taking the word "spy" outside of the scope I would use that word. Who is the leaked information going to? Why was the information leaked? The answers to these question determine whether we're talking about a spy or a whistleblower, at least in my view.

[OngBonga]

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...curacy-record/

How Wikileaks Keeps Its 100% Accuracy Record

When I resigned as Ambassador to blow the whistle on UK/US complicity in torture and extraordinary rendition, I had a number of official documents I wished to leak to prove my story. They were offered to WikiLeaks through two friends, Andrew and Jonathan. WikiLeaks declined to publish them because they could not 100% verify them.

Their reasons were firstly that they were suspicious of me and whether I was a plant; British ambassadors are not given to resigning on principle. Secondly a few of the copies were my own original drafts of diplomatic communications I had sent, not the document as it printed out at the other end.

That is how scrupulous they are. I can vouch for the fact that their record for 100% accuracy is no fluke, it is safeguarded by extreme caution and careful checking.

In the end we launched the documents through mass blogger action on the web, on hundreds of independent sites simultaneously. You can still see them all for example on William Bowles excellent blog, and they are worth a read, even a decade on. I think over that decade I persuaded WikiLeaks I am genuine too!

[Poopadoop]

None of this really gets at the question of why Wikileaks does what it does though. What is their actual purpose- just to tattle on everyone? And who's paying for all this? Maybe they're all just super-idealists. Maybe they're up to something shady. I have no way of knowing.

If you look at the effect their work has it seems basically to undermine gov't in principle, and democratic gov't in particular. In that, they seem to share a common theme with Murray. Thus it's not surprising he's a fan.

Granted, they're not pushing narratives like 'Hillary is an alien', but that just shows they're trying to be taken seriously. Doesn't prove anything they do is legit.

[OngBonga]

None of this really gets at the question of why Wikileaks does what it does though. What is their actual purpose- just to tattle on everyone? And who's paying for all this? Maybe they're all just super-idealists. Maybe they're up to something shady. I have no way of knowing.

If you look at the effect their work has it seems basically to undermine gov't in principle, and democratic gov't in particular. In that, they seem to share a common theme with Murray. Thus it's not surprising he's a fan.

Their goal seems to me to undermine corrupt government, to expose their immoral practises. Who's paying for it all? I was under the impression they took donations, and I am confident there would be no shortage in that regard.

You seem more concerned about the reason why Wikileaks do what they do, than you are about the content of the leaks.

If your brother was caught stealing money from someone's bank account by a bank employee who happened to notice an unusual transaction, would you say that the person who caught them is the one who needs to be analysed?

[Poopadoop]

If your brother was caught stealing money from someone's bank account by a bank employee who happened to notice an unusual transaction, would you say that the person who caught them is the one who needs to be analysed?

I wouldn't just accept that he was guilty just because someone said so.

[OngBonga]

I wouldn't just accept that he was guilty just because someone said so.

But if someone showed you the transaction, in black and white, with IP addresses to pinpoint the source of the theft, would you still say the bank employee might merely have an axe to grind?

I'm not suggesting you assume guilt. I'm suggesting you assume the employee was doing what he felt was the right thing to do. Guilt is for the courts to decide. The point of the bank employee tipping off police is to allow the courts to decide if your brother is guilty or not.

The problem we have here is that instead of having people face courts when they are exposed by groups like Wikileaks, people are instead bickering about where the leaks came from and for what motive.

[Poopadoop]

Their goal seems to me to undermine corrupt government, to expose their immoral practises. Who's paying for it all? I was under the impression they took donations, and I am confident there would be no shortage in that regard.

Again, to what end? Just so everyone knows their gov'ts are corrupt? What else is new?

You seem more concerned about the reason why Wikileaks do what they do, than you are about the content of the leaks.

No, I'm saying it's not as simple as trusting the information-giver by dint of the fact that they claim to be a whistleblower. There's other ways the scenario could come about.

[wufwugy]

Don't mind me, just triggering haters

[OngBonga]

No, I'm saying it's not as simple as trusting the information-giver by dint of the fact that they claim to be a whistleblower. There's other ways the scenario could come about.

But it's not just the fact they claim to be a whistleblower. In Wikileaks' case, it's their track record. And in Murray's case, it's the perceived integrity that he has through blowing his career.

Can I be 100% certain of the integrity of either Wikileaks or Murray? Of course not, this isn't maths or physics we're talking about here. But to dismiss them based on paranoia relating to their intentions is to basically say I trust noone at all. That's a very depressing position to be quite honest.

There must be people out there who just want the world to be a better place. If I were in the position to expose government lies, I would do so without any interest in financial reward. Am I a special kind of person? I don't think so at all.

[Poopadoop]

But it's not just the fact they claim to be a whistleblower. In Wikileaks' case, it's their track record. And in Murray's case, it's the perceived integrity that he has through blowing his career.

There's other ways to look at these things is my point. What appears to be true is not always true.

But to dismiss them based on paranoia relating to their intentions is to basically say I trust noone at all. That's a very depressing position to be quite honest.

There's a difference between questioning and dismissing.

There must be people out there who just want the world to be a better place.

Sure there are, I'm one of them. The problem is you can't necessarily know who they are. The good guys don't necessarily wear white hats.

[OngBonga]

There's a difference between questioning and dismissing.

You really don't need to tell me this. If you think I haven't questioned the sincerity of these guys, you're mistaken.

Sure there are, I'm one of them. The problem is you can't necessarily know who they are. The good guys don't necessarily wear white hats.

Well, it boils down to this... people like Murray and Assange are a lot more likely to be good guys than any given politician, or a celebrity. If Assange is gonna spend 5 years or whatever cooped up in some embassy to pull the wool over my eyes, bravo to him, he did it. They've done everything they can to destroy him. To think he's a plant is even more paranoid than any of the theories I do subscribe to.

Let me be clear about something... from the way they come across both in type and in media, I don't particularly like Assange, and I do like Murray. Assange seems arrogant. Murray seems compassionate and honest. If it wasn't for Wikileaks' track record, helped along by Murray's endorsement of Assange, I'd be a lot more skeptical about the latter. If Murray is a plant to get close to Assange, well he could just be the world's best spy. I'd probably like him even more. Sadly, I don't think that's the case.

[Poopadoop]

You really don't need to tell me this. If you think I haven't questioned the sincerity of these guys, you're mistaken.

I don't think that. You're confusing my questioning with dismissal and that's not what I've been saying.

Well, it boils down to this... people like Murray and Assange are a lot more likely to be good guys than any given politician, or a celebrity. If Assange is gonna spend 5 years or whatever cooped up in some embassy to pull the wool over my eyes, bravo to him, he did it. They've done everything they can to destroy him.

They may be. It's also possible Assange is actually a rapist hiding to save his own skin.

To think he's a plant is even more paranoid than any of the theories I do subscribe to.

Again (and again and again), you're confusing what I consider as a possibility with what I believe. Believing all of these speculations whole-heartedly would indeed be paranoid. Not trusting him 100% is being sensible.

If Murray is a plant to get close to Assange, well he could just be the world's best spy. I'd probably like him even more. Sadly, I don't think that's the case.

You're adding bits to the story I never even said.

[wufwugy]

Indeed.

[Savy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38593513

How mad are you going to be when this works out amazingly Wuf?