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.

Comments

I think it's pretty obvious

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:I think it's pretty obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, I don't think you know what the word means.

Are you suggesting that she's a conservative? Because, within the realm of US politics, that's the alternative.

It's possible that she's:

• Not liberal enough for your tastes.

If you're a Bernie Sanders supporter, then the word you're looking for is progressive.

But she's supposedly for:

• Increasing government involvement in things (pretty much everything here)
• Raising taxes
• Making college free (if your family makes less than $125K in 2021, 1 year after her first term...)
• Expanding the ACA (ObamaCare)
• Reducing defense

These are all liberal ideals (and many are considered progressive as well). The reality is that, it's Hillary Clinton, and therefore you have no idea what she is really for until it matters -- and then it may be too late for everyone. With the exception of reducing defense spending, none of these will ever be uttered by a conservative and a conservative would only mention it with respect to fixing runaway spending and waste (e.g., duplication); not reduction.

Re:I think it's pretty obvious

[guruevi]

What exactly is wrong about publishing everything? The CC should've been reported, cancelled and identity theft insurance provided the minute the DNC knew about the leak. The timing may be convenient but they gave them time to notify their customers, fix their infrastructure etc - had they published immediate, people like you would've been complaining about irresponsibility.

The fact is, the leaks happened. Nobody will die from it unlike Snowden's leak where full publish would've meant certain death to informants. It's a business hack vs a military intelligence hack. Nobody dies when Target loses CC, nobody dies when Microsoft loses source code.

Re: I think it's pretty obvious

[ZeroWaiteState]

Problem is Wikileaks just had a similar leak about full private information of practically every female person in Turkey, shortly after the coup, including whether they were a member of Erdrogan's political party. What's their suggestion to women in Turkey? Get assassination insurance? Get a legal name change? Sell your house?

Re:I think it's pretty obvious

[Dread_ed]

Right now, Europeans think that reason must prevail, and that there's no way the American public can possibly vote in someone like that. But history has a tendency to repeat itself.

Are these reason loving Europeans the ones complaining that the people they invited into the EU are bombing, shooting, stabbing, axing, raping, and running over their friends and families? You can't have it both ways I guess. Either you are for unmitigated immigration, or you are racist xenophobe for entertaining the idea that letting in anyone and everyone without oversight or screening might be a bad idea.

You are as obtuse as you are transparent. Can't you smell your own filth?

The Fifth Estate

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Bad Move

[phantomfive]

Worth mentioning that Chelsea is being moved to solitary confinement.

But don't worry, the government has recognized national whistleblower's day!!

Re:I am with Snowden 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

It is your opinion that WikiLeaks lacks integrity.
But now,
the whole world knows the FACT that
Wasserman Schultz is unethical and tampered with the election process.
Let's hope Tim Canova can kick her butt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Canova

All vs self redaction

[AHuxley]

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/... .

Re:I find it very hard to believe

[vtcodger]

More likely, the Russians desire to get even with the administration for orchestrating the 2014 overthrow of a pro-Russian government in the Ukraine. That has caused the Russians no end of trouble. Did the US actually do that? Hard to tell as everyone looks to be lying non-stop. But very likely it did.