Slashdot Mirror
Snowden Questions WikiLeaks' Methods of Releasing Leaks (pcworld.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from PCWorld: Former U.S. National Security Agency contractor, Edward Snowden, has censured WikiLeaks' release of information without proper curation. On Thursday, Snowden, who has embarrassed the U.S. government with revelations of widespread NSA surveillance, said that WikiLeaks was mistaken in not at least modestly curating the information it releases. "Democratizing information has never been more vital, and @Wikileaks has helped. But their hostility to even modest curation is a mistake," Snowden said in a tweet. WikiLeaks shot back at Snowden that "opportunism won't earn you a pardon from Clinton [and] curation is not censorship of ruling party cash flows." The whistleblowing site appeared to defend itself earlier on Thursday while referring to its "accuracy policy." In a Twitter message it said that it does "not tamper with the evidentiary value of important historical archives." WikiLeaks released nearly 20,000 previously unseen DNC emails last week, which suggest that committee officials had favored Clinton over her rival Senator Bernie Sanders. The most recent leak consists of 29 voicemails from DNC officials.
I think Clinton meddled in Putin's election before. Maybe he's just sending a reply message.
that Wikileaks just wanted to hurt Hilary & the DNC. The timing coupled with their unwillingness to clean out credit card numbers and individual donor names pretty much proves that. The question is why? Is Assange just bitter? I suppose he's got good reason to be (the trumped up rape charges). But if that's his reason he's not after justice, he just wants to see America burn.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
just telling the truth lacks self gratification? cease fire stand down,, spirit of creation all++++ we have to invent more ways to negate us....
That the Russians would ever spy on the US. Isn't Putin a constitutional scholar?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Redacting leaks serves no purpose. Other people already have the information, why hide it?
Nothing to see here.
Regardless of any imperfect implementation of information dissemination, shouldn't Snowden and Assange essentially be on the same team here? The bickering seems to undermine them both.
Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
Wikileaks is correct. Back down Snowden. There is a time and place for collation and curation. That's a journalists job.
If the ends justifies the means then expect bogus things added to leaks to further their agenda, not the whistleblowers.
Doxing half of a country's population? Classy. Especially just after a successful coup.
You have to go after the persons who took the info or did not handle it correctly, not the guy that put it on the Internet after someone gave it to him. He has no responsibility to your country.
The basics of journalism do help. Just dumping raw data with no concern to how it may affect third parties that are irrelevant to the main story really hurts your overall credibility. Not even showing any attempt to verify the information as valid (because it is easy to tamper with digital information) with additional sources does as well. News matters. Providing a context to a given set of information is important. Asking for comment and/or rebuttal from various parties is important, even if they refuse. Showing judgement as to what is relevant is important.. Not doing so opens them up to a ton of valid criticism. Some editorial prudence would go a long way overall.
Apparently they have been sitting on these for a couple of months waiting for the right time to cause maximum chaos. There was plenty of time to scrub credit cards, phone numbers, etc. Either Assange doesn't care about what collateral damage he causes or the Russians didn't provide the data until right before release date.
The sentiment for curation would normally be justified, but in this case a clear deadline was at hand.
Americans needed to see the gross injustice that had been perpetrated on Sander's supporters.
And they needed to understand the situation with great urgency,
The fact that Wasserman Schultz was booed off the podium,
the fact that the DNC was forced to offer an apology during the convention and
the fact that little Debbie was forced to announce her resignation during the convention,
means that this totally unethical behavior cannot be swept under the carpet.
If WikiLeaks had delayed, the story would have been dumped on the back pages.
In this case, WikiLeaks did the right thing, and this will stay in the history books.
Now how long will it take for Clinton to do the right thing and dump Wasserman Schultz.
As long as she is kept on, it is clear that she acted at Clinton's behest.
Morpheus is fighting Neo.
It's *how* they help... or hurt that matters, though. Exposing corruption is a benefit to everyone. Polonium tea, not so much.
One of the interesting leaks that hasn't gotten a lot of press was in the DNC email leak and showed that the Washington Post was having some kind of secret fundraiser with the DNC that their own lawyers said they shouldn't be doing. So it's not like we even have the media to rely upon to do proper investigations any more and, weird as it may seem, we appear to have found a 5th estate. Bet it won't last any longer than the 4th did, though.
wikileask says said that it does "not tamper with the evidentiary value of important historical archives."
the irony is - that wikileaks didn't publish unedited documents!!
the meta data shows the truth:
https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/743197064843104257
so wikileaks loses credibility about keeping the source untampered with
First off the US has not indicted or even asked for Assange to be extradited. However, he could be charged as an accessory to the theft of information. And Assange turned WikiLeaks from an information clearing house whose main purpose was to provide anonymity to the sources of information. Instead he has assumed ownership of the information which he then used to push a political agenda. He went around negotiating fees from other news outlets for access of the information. Snowden's pet journalist Glenn Greenwald, who is a rabid US hater, has also stage managed the release of information to support his political view point. He was probably the guy who convinced Snowden that the righteousness of their actions would protect him from prosecution. And the stage managed data releases only include items that support their narrative. Any information that could contradict their story line is never released.
Oh brother....
These emails weren't about national security. They were a bunch of DNC officials unfairly manipulating the electoral process. I disagreed with Wikileaks releasing non-curated information in the past, but in this case they helped democracy. If it wasn't for the leak Wasserman Schultz's disgraceful conduct wouldn't have been exposed.
Assange made Wikileaks a one man show. One that lacks integrity.
Wikileaks is about providing raw data so that actual journalists can do there job. To criticize Julian Assange is to misplace blame. It's perfectly valid to say- yes- this might harm innocent people and it's still a good idea to release as is. There are all sorts of risks to life we take every day. Just getting in ones car is a risky proposition. The reason we do it though is because more good comes from it than if we don't.
Worth mentioning that Chelsea is being moved to solitary confinement.
But don't worry, the government has recognized national whistleblower's day!!
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Interesting that nobody finds it strange that Aasange has a TV show on Putins propaganda network RT.
Pretty much destroys his credibilty in my mind.
Snowden can go fuck himself. He's lucky he isn't 6 feet under.
Also what the fuck is wrong with Slashdot's related links? On half the stories it's various killings/terrorist attacks and what not. Totally unrelated to the story pretty much always.
Long term a full release helps historians, authors, bloggers and any interested people fill in the redacted material after 30 years of official gov releases in some nations. .
A limited, self censored release over years by a subset of the press seems useful in the short term to sell content but long term its all the information in its full context that helps.
A full release also prevents any questions surrounding members of the press who claim to be experts in certain areas and then only publish fragments on what they feel they understand or want write about for domestic consumption. That can be very limiting for any future historians and can result in a very small sub set of diverse material been covered many times.
Eg a group of journalists only feel comfortable about releasing material about corruption in a few nations... and hold back all the other interesting material as they see it as outside the help they can request from their own gov and mil contacts.
Members of the press then publish the same story with a few local twists or focus on a name in decades old material on advice of their legal departments.
A searchable full release is also good for details like format, dates. Names that did not hold a position that year, fonts, jargon that could point to alterations, self censorship, missing material, a limited hang out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Comrade Snowden believes leaks should be reviewed by Russian eyes first, to ensure to inappropriate situations occur. Wikileaks-Russian partnership requires more serious communication.
The fact that they don't release information when they get it means they are trying to influence people, instead of letting the data influence people, wikileaks is no better than any other organization.
Yep what i thought too. Can you get more hypocritical than edward snowden
>He was probably the guy who convinced Snowden
Nope.
Integrity: N. Definition: Having the quality of supporting liberal causes. Example: The liberal journalist showed great integrity by not further investigating any of the allegations that Hillary Clinton's private email server was used to cover up damning evidence that charitable donations to her foundation were given for doing favors as Secretary of State.
Example 2: Although what Snowden released was true, he showed no integrity by releasing information that showed corruption in the DNC.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
Paying a thief to hack is illegal. Paying another news org to show you what the hacker gave them is not.
Nor is timing the releases to harm candidates illegal -- that is political speech, the most protected of all.
He only did something illegal if he paid for the info from the original hacker, or helped in some way.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
We're just easing into the world where no secrets can be kept. There will be some discontent as the proles start to see how the sausage is made, but whenever they realize that all the machinery is that dirty, things should settle down a bit. It's pretty much a universal truth that anyone who actively seeks power should under no circumstances be allowed to have that power. They're all fucking scumbags but we'll keep voting for them or the wrong scumbag will get it. I mean, what else could we do? Have a draft like Jury Duty? "Congratulations, you've been selected to serve 6 years in the Senate. Here's a six digit salary and a page. Try not to fuck it up!" It would never work because reasons!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Snowden is going to lecture someone about responsible disclosure? Give me a fucking break. This is just Snowden remindering everyone that Snowden still exists, don't forget about me! I'm the REAL leaker! The guy is an absolutely shameless self promoter.
I don't honestly know where I stand on this debate, but for Wikileaks to suggest Snowden is just angling for a pardon from Clinton is a comically childish response. Tons of respect lost for that group. I've seen higher levels of discourse in a local newspaper comment section.
hi
Most of these outlandish lawsuits you hear about never happened. snopes.com maintains a partial list
Do you think Ed Snowden uses mother fucking Twitter from Russia? To reach out to his USA fans?
That site is social engineering. His account is FBI pipe dream. On Facebook they were posting this same fucking story with a HEADLINE STORY photo of Ed Snowden on video. It's a fucking tweet. It is NOT a video.
He is not questioning Wikileaks. Y'all are fucking retarded like mother fucking fuckin shit.
The mentally ill convict Bradly "Chelsea" Manning is facing punishment associated with further misconduct while serving his prison sentence. Nothing much to see, this sort of thing is something that happens all the time prison.
It appears that part of the motivation for his "whistleblowing" was apparently rage over being dumped by his homosexual boyfriend. In other words, he was acting out, the same thing that has brought him to grief again.